/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/rss 九一星空无限 Sun, 20 Apr 2025 08:14:46 Z en /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-why-we-need-two-practical-driving-tests/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-why-we-need-two-practical-driving-tests/ Is it ever-so-slightly ironic that, on the same day that the first highway in the South Island had its speed limit increased to 110 kph, we had the Government announce that it wants to make it easier for people to get their driver’s licence?  The highway is the main drag that runs between Christchurch and Rolleston. And the proposed driver licence changes are a range of things to make it easier and quicker for someone to get their full licence.  There’s some good stuff in there. But I’m not liking this idea of doing away with the second practical test.  We’ve got a few weeks to tell the Government what we think of its ideas through a consultation phase that starts today.  There are some good things in the plan. I like the idea of new drivers having to behave themselves if they want to graduate to their full licence. The Government wants to halve the number of demerit points new drivers can get before having their licence suspended. At the moment, it’s 100. The Government wants to reduce that down to 50 demerit points.  I like the idea of zero alcohol for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government wants to apply that rule to new drivers - whatever their age.   So they’re some of the good ideas.  But this idea of only having one practical test, instead of two - it doesn’t get my tick.   And I know Transport Minister Chris Bishop is saying New Zealand is a bit isolated in that regard. But doing something just because it’s the way everyone else does it has never been a great justification for anything.  Just like it’s not a great justification in this case. Because when someone is starting out as a driver, surely that’s the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits.  Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better.  But under this proposal, a person would have one practical test to get their restricted licence and never be tested again until they’re well past retirement age.  Here’s Transport Minister Chris Bishop’s explanation as to why the Government is doing this. He’s saying today: "We've heard for a while now that the system just hasn't been working as efficiently as people would like, and that there are particularly young people out there who are really reluctant to go and get their full licence because it is stressful, it is anxiety-inducing, and it is costly as well.”  Stressful and anxiety-inducing? Don’t you think that, when it comes to something as important as a driver’s licence, feeling a bit stressed about it is a good thing?  That might just be me. But there’s probably a truckload of things we could do away with on the basis that they cause stress and anxiety for people.  And, surely, if someone does one practical driving test - they’re going to be just as stressed about that one. So I don’t see how reducing it from two is going to address that issue.  Remember too that, apparently, having a driver’s licence is a privilege - not an entitlement.  But, for me, the overarching reason why the two practical tests need to stay, comes down to bad habits.   Anyone who drives has bad habits. There is no perfect driver out there.  And, whether we’ve been driving for 12 months or 12 years, we all have bad habits.    I surprised a few people when I told them that I sat-in on the practical driving tests two of our kids did. You can do that - you sit in the back if you promise not to say anything.  And when I did that, I was amazed to find from the examiner some of the things that you can be failed for.  And there were some of those things that I do all the time. And that’s why the second practical test is so necessary.  Because it’s an opportunity for someone to have any bad habits they might have developed while on their restricted licence pointed out to them.  Especially if it’s a bad habit that leads to them failing their practical test.  If they fail, they’ll remember.   And I think we’d be making a serious mistake if we took away this backstop, if you like, from the driver licence system.  Just because it causes a bit of stress and anxiety. And just because it makes it a bit more expensive.  Unless, of course, you think a driver’s licence is nothing more than a rite of passage. Unless you think that a licence is an entitlement, not a privilege.  Making it easier for someone to get their full licence and doing away with the second practical test doesn’t sound like a privilege to me.  LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 14 Apr 2025 05:14:07 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-was-the-treaty-principles-debate-worth-it/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-was-the-treaty-principles-debate-worth-it/ The Treaty Principles Bill is history. Done and dusted. But ACT leader David Seymour, who came up with the bill in the first place, has no regrets.    And it’s not done and dusted, as far as he’s concerned.   He could bring it back again. But I think what he’s most likely to do is make it a campaign issue in next year’s general election, or try to get a more explicit equality provision in the Bill of Rights Act.   All he’s saying is: “I accepted that they've decided on this particular bill at this point in time.” Going on to say: “watch this space”.   But whatever happens in the future, the questions at this point are: was the whole thing worth it? And did we learn anything?   I tell you what I’ve learned – although, it’s probably something that I knew anyway. But what I’ve taken away from all this is that, wherever we are on the political spectrum, we are not as open to new ideas as much as we might like to think so.   The Treaty Principles Bill got those on the left extremely agitated and excited. Just like 3 Waters got those on the right extremely agitated and excited.   I was against it because I think any agreement shouldn’t be tinkered with – especially when you get Parliament poking its nose in and tinkering with it.   And that’s what the Treaty is. It’s an agreement.   The real problem is how the Treaty has been interpreted and used. For example: I’m against the Treaty being used to influence criminal sentences. I’m against the Treaty being used as a reason not to hire the best person for the job.    But that’s not the Treaty’s fault. That’s the fault of the institutions and the organisations and the individuals who have enabled that to happen.   Because let’s say the Treaty Principles Bill hadn’t been binned yesterday and it went through all the stages and ended up being law, do you really think it would have made things any better or any different?   Because the idea behind it —as David Seymour is still saying today— was to ensure everyone is treated equally. But what does “treated equally” mean?   I bet we’ve all got different ideas of what that is. For example, if the Treaty principles were changed in the way David Seymour wants them to be, what’s to stop a judge (for example) seeing this so-called “equal treatment” being a licence to give a lighter sentence to someone from a disadvantaged background? So for me, the focus needs to be much more on how the treaty principles are applied, not the principles themselves.   As to whether it’s been worth the effort and whether it’s been a waste of time – at this point, I think it has been a huge waste of time, energy, and money.     But it won’t have been a waste if we do learn from this and realise that it’s not the Treaty itself but the way that it’s applied that’s the real issue.   If we’re big enough —even those of us who opposed David Seymour’s bill— to see that we have learned something out of the process, then it won’t have been a waste.    But as I say, this whole thing has shown me again how incapable we are —as a country— of having the so-called “grown up conversations” David Seymour thinks we should be having.   And if we can’t get beyond that, then there’s no doubt this whole thing has been a complete waste of time.  Fri, 11 Apr 2025 00:44:16 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-trumps-economic-vandalism-is-staggering/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-trumps-economic-vandalism-is-staggering/ I saw a brilliant cartoon the other day which had America’s founding fathers sitting around a table writing up the country’s constitution - and they had agreed that the US wouldn’t have a king, but they were thinking about having a drama queen instead.   And after what we saw overnight, I think it would be pretty hard to argue that the current US president is anything but a drama queen. He’s also an economic vandal.   Donald Trump has announced that he’s pausing his global trade tariffs for 90 days for most countries, but upping the ante with China. Increasing the tariff on Chinese goods going into the United States to 125%.   And as Chinese political scientist Shi Yihong is saying today, this is going to mean that trade between China and the US will be “mostly destroyed”.   American economist Arthur Kroeber agrees, saying that what’s happening right now shows that Trump is committed to ending US trade with China.   Which equates in my mind to one thing: economic vandalism.    And if you want proof, consider what America’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is saying. He says this flip-flop was Trump's plan all along   He says: “This was his strategy all along, and that you might even say that he goaded China into a bad position and they responded. They have shown themselves to the world to be the bad actors, and we are willing to cooperate with our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate. It wasn’t a hard message: don’t retaliate, things will turn out well.”   How chilling is that?    If Trump planned this all along, it shows how comfortable he is causing economic chaos around the world.   Maybe that shouldn’t surprise me. Which is why I mentioned that cartoon earlier. All this tariff stuff has been the work of a drama queen, but I reckon that this development overnight takes things next level.   When we’ve got the head of the Treasury in the States saying that this was Trump’s plan all along —to slap countries with tariffs, see which ones retaliate, and then give the countries which don't retaliate some sort of 90-day “get out of jail card”— it's economic vandalism.   It’s clear now too that Donald Trump wants the world to cower in fear of him.   And it’s working. Not that I expect or want our government to go ape at him and his administration, because I don’t think that would achieve anything, but the careful language we’re hearing from the likes of Nicola Willis shows that even our government is walking on eggshells.   Back in November, when Trump won the presidential election, political commentator Matthew Hooton said the US was entering “its most dangerous period since 1861, the start of the civil war” and that the world was entering its most dangerous phase since World War II.   He said back in November: “The world enters its most dangerous period since World War II, with Trump threatening to launch a global trade war and collapse the World Trade Organisation.”   Matthew Hooton said that during his last term, Trump had at least some people in his circle who could be relied on to keep his most extreme tendencies in check.   He said: “There are no such people around him this time. Nor is he constrained by the need to worry about re-election.” Hence, his conclusion that we were entering very dangerous times.   And I think maybe he’s turned out be right.   And I’m starting to think that maybe I was wrong. Because when I read his article in the NZ Herald I said that, on the basis of the world not falling apart last time he was president, I wasn’t going to buy into the hysteria.    I did say I could be proven wrong. And going by the way the world looks today, I may have just been proven wrong.   Thu, 10 Apr 2025 00:44:01 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-do-politicians-religious-beliefs-matter-to-you/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-do-politicians-religious-beliefs-matter-to-you/ If the MP for Ilam, Hamish Campbell, thinks he’s going to get away with not saying anything more about his involvement with this underground religious group, then he’s dreaming.   It doesn’t have an official name, but it’s known as the “Two By Twos” and it’s being investigated by the FBI and the police for child abuse.   One of its former ministers here in New Zealand has admitted 55 child sex abuse charges over three decades against young boys and, from what I’ve seen, there are about 2,500 members in New Zealand.   It’s being reported that Hamish Campbell has hosted study meetings at his home in Christchurch – but he’s neither confirming nor denying that.   The thing about the home meetings is that the group doesn’t have official buildings, and so they meet in people’s houses.    An interesting thing is this Christian organisation doesn’t celebrate Christmas and Easter. And it separates itself from other Christian denominations. It’s been around for a while too – it was founded in Ireland in 1897 and has been in New Zealand for about 120 years.   Hamish Campbell has put out a statement, but he’s going to need to do more than that. And then, once he’s at least confirmed that he’s involved and answers a few other basic questions, he should be left alone.  Because if we’re going to condemn Hamish Campbell for being involved with a religious group accused of abusing kids, then you may as well write off any politician connected to the Catholic Church, for example. Because I don’t think it matters what religious beliefs MPs hold.   I’ve never been bothered about Christopher Luxon being an Evangelical Protestant. I don’t care about Simeon Brown being Baptist. And I think my lack of concern about that has been shown to be pretty well-founded.   I haven’t seen any evidence that Luxon and Brown’s religious beliefs are determining their political decision-making.   So here’s what Hamish Campbell has said so far. You might have seen him on the news on TV being approached outside Parliament. He closed the door on the reporter, though, when she asked him about hosting study meetings at his home in Christchurch.   After that report on the news, he sent our newsroom a statement, pretty much reiterating what he said on TV, but still saying nothing about hosting gatherings at his place.   But he says he fully supports the guy who’s calling the group out for abusing kids and that the police are the best people to investigate it. But here’s the bit that shows that Hamish Campbell thinks he doesn’t need to say anything more about it.   In his statement, he says: “My wife and I are non-denominational Christians but my faith is separate from my role as a politician.”   Campbell is a regular guest on 九一星空无限talk ZB’s Politics Friday. He’s a very smart guy, worked for about 20 years as a scientist, and he’s a nice guy. He’s not going to set the political world on fire, but nothing about him comes across as particularly creepy or weird.    Getting a straight answer out of him can be a challenge. Which is why, when I saw him on the news last night, I thought he was true to form. But that’s not serving him well on this occasion.   He needs to front up, confirm he’s involved, confirm whether he has meetings at his place or not, and confirm how much he knows about the abuse allegations. Then the people of Ilam can decide how much of an issue this is.   Wed, 09 Apr 2025 01:06:53 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-12-billion-on-defence-im-good-with-that/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-12-billion-on-defence-im-good-with-that/ It would be great if we didn’t have to spend $12 billion on our defence force. But we do, and I’m good with it.    To be honest though, while we’d known the Government had some sort of plan to increase defence spending, I was still blown away a bit by the scale of it when the announcement came through.    So, $12 billion over the next four years. There’ll be new helicopters, more missiles, autonomous vessels, the air force’s clapped-out 757s will be replaced. And that’s just the start, because it’s all part of a bigger 15-year plan to up the ante on the defence front.    The Government says it will boost defence spending to more than 2% of GDP within the next eight years, which we haven’t seen since the early 1990s. Defence Minister Judith Collins says defence personnel are excited, because under-investment over the last 35 years has left the force gutted.   Former NZ First defence minister Ron Mark is over the moon too. But he says the Government should sign contracts for the new gear ASAP, so any future government can't ditch the plans.   But he says it's not just about missiles and helicopters, there's an issue with people power, as well. And recruiting the people needed to deliver the Government's 15-year plan will be a big challenge.   Which Judith Collins acknowledges – you might have heard that the defence force has lowered some its academic requirements for people wanting to join the forces. Which I think makes sense. Judith Collins does too.    And she says what we pay our defence personnel —as opposed to this $12 billion that’s going to be spent on kit— will be covered in the Budget next month.   What this all brings us to is the question of what sort of operation you think our defence force should be.   Should it use this new capability that it will have to focus on peacekeeping? Should there be more of a focus on surveillance? Or do you think we need a defence force that is capable of attacking?   Professor Al Gillespie is an international law expert from Waikato University. He says this big investment in defence shows New Zealand has joined the arms race.   He's saying today: "We've avoided doing it for quite some time but there's been a lot of pressure on us to increase the amount of money that we spend.”   So the Government is responding to that pressure. And I think it’s great. Yes, the money could be spent on health and education, but our defence force is in such bad shape that the Government has no choice.   And, in terms of what sort of capability I want our military to have, I think we need to cover all of the bases. We have to be equipped to keep the peace. Surveillance is another critical role. But if we think we can do either of those things without some sort firepower to back it up, then we’re dreaming.   And the government knows that, which is why it wants our ships to be combat-capable. I’m not saying that I want our defence force going in all guns blazing, but it needs to be capable. Way more capable than it is now.    Which is why I think this $12 billion —and everything else that comes on top of that— is going to be money well spent.   Tue, 08 Apr 2025 01:16:13 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-is-prison-the-wrong-place-for-some-offenders/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-is-prison-the-wrong-place-for-some-offenders/ I’m liking what Sir Ron Young is saying about prison sentences today. He’s really challenging us, saying that we need to re-think what we do with people given sentences of two-to-three years. He’s talking about not sending them to conventional prisons and giving them conjugal rights. This is how they deal with things in Scandinavian countries. He thinks we should do the same here. And I reckon we should too. He’s the outgoing head of the Parole Board and he’s saying that short prison sentences aren’t working and we need to have a re-think. He’s saying that offenders who are sent to prison for this amount of time are more likely to re-offend, compared to people who go inside for longer. For say, eight years. And there are stats to back it up. Sir Ron says the re-offending rate for people locked up on shorter prison sentences is 40 percent. And for those who do longer sentences, the reoffending rate is about 10 percent. So you can’t argue with that. What we can argue about, though, is whether Sir Ron’s ideas have any merit. And I think they do. He reckons a much better thing to do with people who commit crimes that get them a two or three year sentence, would be not to send them to the jails we have now - and, instead, house them within communities in facilities that are less like prisons, where they’d be allowed to vote, and also entitled to conjugal visits from their partners. Which is the approach they take in Scandinavian countries. Sir Ron’s coming at this from the aspect of re-offending. But, in particular, rehabilitating someone who commits a crime. And he says that with the offenders who only have two or three years inside, they have way less opportunities to get rehabilitated and end-up spending a lot of their time hanging out with serious crims. He describes IT as “a university of crime”. And he thinks it would be way better if these offenders went somewhere else, where it felt less like a prison and more like normal life. He admits, though, that it could be hard thing for some people to swallow. Especially, given the political and public interest in tougher prison sentences. But, as a society, what’s more important? Punishing offenders or trying to make sure they don’t offend again? As Sir Ron says, once a crime has been committed - you can’t change that. But the thing you can try to do, is to try and stop them offending again. And, if this alternative way being suggested by Sir Ron today could do a better job of preventing crimes from happening, then why not give it a go? If most of the offenders doing these short sentences spend most of their time inside learning how to become a better criminal, then why would we stick with the way we’re doing things? Sir Ron is saying today that these people on two-or-three year sentences are being “educated in the way of crime”. So, of course, they should be in different environments. And, of course, they should be prepared as much as possible for life beyond prison. I was reading about the “open prisons” in some Scandinavian countries - where Sir Ron is drawing his inspiration for doing things differently here in New Zealand. One of them, in Sweden, lets inmates hold down jobs. They head out for the day to work and come back at night. There’s even a car park for them and, if they work late, a meal is left out for them. Essentially, what it comes down to, is these Scandinavian countries don’t shut prisoners out of society completely. Which is what Sir Ron thinks we should do here in New Zealand offenders sentenced for two-to-three years. If it would mean less re-offending, it's worth trying, isn't it? Mon, 07 Apr 2025 00:52:27 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-im-not-going-anti-america-over-the-tariffs/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-im-not-going-anti-america-over-the-tariffs/ Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reckons people in Australia are going to feel dumped-on by the United States after yesterday’s trade tariffs announcement. And he thinks that Australians will feel differently about Australia's relationship with America.   Like us, imports into the United States from Australia are going to be hit with a 10% tariff.   And Albanese —who is on the campaign trail— is talking tough, saying that the tariffs are “not the act of a friend” and Aussies won't be taking kindly to it.   I’m not going to speak on behalf of Australians, but I don’t feel that way at all. We knew these tariffs were likely. We knew they were coming. I don't like them, but it's not going to change how I feel about our relationship with America.     One political commentator across the Tasman is describing the tariffs this way, saying they are “unprecedented hostility from an ally”.   Brad Setser —a former Department of Treasury economist in the States— described them on 九一星空无限talk ZB as "shockingly radical".   They also show that, when it comes to Donald Trump, you can do as much sucking-up as you want but it won’t make any difference.   Trump doesn’t do special relationships. Look at British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent visit to the White House and all the cosying up and handing-over of the letter from the King.   That came to nothing. Britain’s been hit with a 10% tariff. It’s even worse for Europe, which has been hit with a blanket 20% tariff – despite France's president and Poland’s president having fireside chats with Trump at the White House in recent weeks.   Israel dropped its tariffs on US goods the day before yesterday’s announcement, but still got hit with a 17% tariff.   Although, our Trade Minister Todd McClay reckons there might be some wriggle room for countries facing tariffs higher than the 10% minimum.   As for Australia’s PM, he’s condemned the tariffs, saying they are totally unwarranted. Going on to say that he thinks they will have an impact on the way Australians view Australia’s relationship with America.   He didn’t go into any great detail on that - but I don’t feel any differently. And I suspect most Kiwis won’t feel any differently.   I don’t think we are suddenly going to go all anti-America on it just because the products we export to the United States are going to be more expensive over there because of the tariffs.   I think if anyone is anti-America, they’ll be anti-America already.   Like the guy who won’t let Americans stay at his Airbnb. Mario Schmidt hasn’t been letting Americans make bookings with him since the scene with Ukraine’s President in the White House. So he’s anti-Trump and anti-America already.   Anyone who is going to be anti-Trump and anti-America will be already, and everyone else will see the tariffs for what they are: a fact of life that we can’t do anything about.   We have to like it or lump it, and they will make no difference to the way Kiwis feel about America.   Fri, 04 Apr 2025 00:35:51 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-greater-housing-density-is-the-future-christchurch/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-greater-housing-density-is-the-future-christchurch/ We were all standing up and cheering the Christchurch City Council three years ago, when it flipped the bird at the Government over housing intensification. Because there was no way we were going to agree to three, three-story houses being built on one section.   But I’ve changed my thinking.   Eventually, the city council kind-of pulled its head in. But it’s still dragging the chain a bit and wants more time before agreeing to what the Government wants.   But one city councillor, at least, thinks we should stop dragging the chain, that we should get with the programme and allow this intensification to happen. And I agree with him. I think he’s making a very good point.   Maybe it’s because my stance on intensification has eased since 2022, when the council told the Government in no uncertain terms that it wasn’t interested in having three, three-story houses on one section.  And I think Christchurch city councillor Andrei Moore is making a very good argument in favour of greater housing density. Saying that, if we don’t let it happen, more and more houses will be built in places like Rolleston and Prebbleton. Which are not in Christchurch, they’re in the Selwyn District, and that will mean more and more people travelling into the city every day, using Christchurch’s roading infrastructure and not paying a bean towards it. Because they don't live in Christchurch city - they live in Selwyn.   And he’s saying we should stop kicking the can down the road and just get on with it. Instead of spending another year resisting it, we need to accept that greater housing density is here whether we like it or not.   He says: “It’s high time we wake up and deal with the reality of city growth.”   And I couldn’t agree more. And yes, that does mean that my stance on intensification has changed, and there’s nothing wrong with that.   The plan originally was to let developments with three, three-storey properties to be built on one section pretty much anywhere. But it was modified a bit.   Modified to restrict this level of intensification to the central city, around shopping centres and what's described as "walkable distances" from core public transport routes.   Which is still pretty carte blanche when you think about shopping malls and areas on core public transport routes.   As far as shopping malls go, we’ve got the likes of the Hub Hornby, Riccarton Mall, Bush Inn, the Tannery, Barrington Mall, Tower Junction, Eastgate Mall, Merivale Mall, Northlands Mall, Fendalton Mall, the Palms, Homebase, and the Colombo.   Which means intensification getting the green light in Hornby, Riccarton, Opawa, Barrington, Linwood, Merivale all the way up to Northlands, Fendalton, Shirley, Sydenham and Beckenham.   And, if that’s how it has to be, then I’m with Andrei Moore and I agree with him that we need to bite the bullet and get on with it.   Because A: we’ve got a housing affordability problem in this country, and the quarter-acre section is a thing of the past.    So, if you want your kids to be able to afford to buy their own place, it’s not going to be somewhere with a big backyard. So we need more apartments and townhouses - the places you get with greater housing density.   And B: population growth is real. The numbers aren’t massive, but they’re real and expected to continue in the upwards direction.   The city’s population is around 396,000. Last year it was 1.2% up on the year before. Over the last five years, population growth in Christchurch has averaged 1.3% annually.   Before the quakes, it was declining. There was an especially large jump in 2023, when the population in Christchurch city increased by 2.7%.   And city councillors pushing back on greater housing density in Christchurch are ignoring the obvious. That, yes, backyards are great. Yes, Christchurch is supposed to be the garden city. And yes, the people against intensification are most likely to be the people who can be bothered to vote.   But, if they put all that aside, they'd see that their colleague Andrei Moore is being realistic. And I agree with him that it’s time for Christchurch to stop pushing back on greater housing intensification.  Thu, 03 Apr 2025 00:10:03 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-how-to-get-big-events-to-nz/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-how-to-get-big-events-to-nz/ The Prime Minister has lived up to his talk of being a great negotiator, saying “thanks but no thanks” to Team New Zealand.    Because a great negotiator is always prepared to walk away if the negotiations aren’t going their way, and that’s what the Government has done. Telling Grant Dalton and Team NZ that putting $75 million of taxpayer money into hosting the next America’s Cup would be a nice-to-have, not a must-have.   I think the Government has done the right thing and the wrong thing.   It’s done the wrong thing because no one can argue that the economic spinoff from hosting something like the America's Cup is huge.    Everyone’s talking about Barcelona getting truckloads out of hosting the event. Although, they did have the option of hosting it again but decided not to. So maybe the benefits are being talked up a bit.   But either way, there are economic benefits that come from hosting something like the America's Cup and, because of that, the Government’s done the wrong thing turning its back on it   But my overriding feeling is that it’s done the right thing because we just can’t afford it.   Whether we will ever be able to afford it, who knows? But it highlights how we really need to get our act together when it comes to attracting big events here.   And we won’t do that, unless we all stop competing with each other.   When I say “we”, I’m talking about Christchurch and Wellington and Auckland and Dunedin. Everywhere.  At the moment, all cities and towns compete with each other to get big events. In Christchurch, when the stadium is open, we’ll be trying to get concerts away from Dunedin and get them happening here instead.   At the moment, we have ChristchurchNZ in Christchurch, DunedinNZ in Dunedin, WellingtonNZ in Wellington, and Auckland Unlimited in Auckland, all doing the same thing —not to mention all the other agencies around the country— all fighting it out to get events to their areas.   And I think this is crazy. Because what’s happening is we have all these different agencies taking a very parochial view of the world.   ChristchurchNZ, for example, only goes into bat for Christchurch - or Canterbury. When what all of these agencies should doing is working together on a joint approach.   Not only because it would mean they weren’t all chasing the same thing, it would also mean more money to spend on getting these events here. And it’s not just money to get events here, it’s money for facilities too. And the parochial ideas blinding our thinking on that.   Perfect example being the stadium saga in Auckland and the council deciding last week to redevelop Eden Park instead of building something new on the waterfront. They’re still wanting more than $100 million from the Government for Eden Park, when we already have stadiums coming out of our ears in New Zealand.   There’s Dunedin stadium - with a roof. The new Christchurch stadium - with a roof. The Cake Tin, in Wellington. And Eden Park.   And the only reason money is being poured into Eden Park is parochialism. Just like Christchurch wanted a 30,000 seat stadium because of parochialism.   And if the country keeps going like this, we’ll never have the money to get big events here. We’ll have the stadiums - but there’ll be nothing happening inside them.   Which is why we need to take the job of chasing these big events away from all these regional agencies and have one central agency deciding what events we’re going to go for and where they’re going to be held.   Because what’s good for Christchurch is good for Auckland. And what’s good for Dunedin is good for Wellington.   Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:15:02 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-new-ferries-by-2029-ill-believe-it-when-i-see-it/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-new-ferries-by-2029-ill-believe-it-when-i-see-it/ Four more years. That's how long we’re going to have to wait for KiwiRail's new interisland ferries. But I reckon it will turn out being longer than that.   The Government says it will be December 2029. By then, we will have had two elections.   But I don’t think it will happen in that timeframe, because I listened this morning to someone who knows a bit about this. Mark Thompson’s his name. He was in charge of the Government’s ferry ministerial advisory group.    He reckons the Government is a bit on the optimistic side, thinking the ferries can be here in four years’ time.  He was talking this morning about decarbonisation within the maritime sector creating huge, worldwide demand for new ships. As he puts it, he thinks the Government will need its spinnaker up and calm seas to meet the deadline, because of what's happening internationally.   Spinnaker up and a calm sea. A wing and a prayer. Fingers crossed. Sounds exactly like the way we do infrastructure here in New Zealand, doesn’t it?   I thought Mark Thompson sounded pretty unimpressed with the announcement. That will be because the Government has ignored his committee’s advice to not go with ferries capable of carrying rail wagons.    His advice was that ferries that could only carry trucks would be cheaper. But Winston, of course, was all-for ferries that can carry rail wagons from the get-go.   So maybe Mark Thompson’s nose is out of joint a bit. But I’m listening to what he has to say. Because he’s the guy who looked into this whole ferry thing after Finance Minister Nicola Willis pulled the plug on the former Labour government’s iReX project.   Winston Peters isn’t buying any talk about delays though and says the new ferries will be here by the end of 2029. But when you dig further into his announcement yesterday, you see that he’s talking about the ferries being no frills, on one hand, but also saying that many of the costs he’s cutting will need to be paid for somehow in the future.   And these are the costs for the on-land facilities at Picton and Wellington – which he’s suggesting will have to be covered by the ports themselves.   He’s saying that investment is needed at Picton, but he reckons the facilities in Wellington have got another 30 years in them.   Again, doesn’t that sound so familiar when it comes to infrastructure in this country? “We can get away with what we’ve got for a bit longer” – the same for the ferries themselves. The ones that keep clapping out.   As for the new ships - if we do end up competing with the rest of the world for new vessels because of a global influx of orders, we could end up waiting more than four years.   That's why I’ll believe it when I see it.   Mon, 31 Mar 2025 23:57:05 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-duty-of-care-do-me-a-favour-christian/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-duty-of-care-do-me-a-favour-christian/ Some people think a 90-day trial for new workers is tough, but what about a two-day trial? Which is what’s happened with Liam Lawson.   And like his Red Bull teammate, world champion Max Verstappen, I think it stinks. Verstappen thinks Lawson should have been given more than two races to prove himself, and I couldn’t agree more.   Red Bull are dressing it up, saying that they’re dumping Lawson as part of their “duty of care” obligations.   Red Bull boss Christian Horner said overnight: “We have a duty of care to protect and develop Liam and together we see that, after such a difficult start, it makes sense to act quickly so Liam can gain experience, as he continues his Formula 1 career with Racing Bulls.”  But BBC Formula 1 correspondent Andrew Benson isn’t buying it.   He pretty much said on 九一星空无限talk ZB that Red Bull are trying to put lipstick on a pig. They're dressing it up, trying to make it sound better than it is. Which is nothing short of an unceremonious dumping.    Andrew Benson says: "This is not a duty of care by any stretch of the imagination, getting rid of someone after two races.  "Duty of care is to give him a chance to try and perform a bit better. Put your arm around his shoulder and talk to him about what’s going wrong.”   So the “duty of care” line is hogwash.  But even Andrew Benson, who’s a Formula 1 correspondent and follows the sport all the time, is scratching his head trying to work out what’s happened.   He did say though, that he thought Lawson looked like a bit like a rabbit caught in the headlights at his two races this year.  He said looking at Liam off the track, while he was waiting to do interviews and things, he looked completely shellshocked.   But, like Max Verstappen, he thinks Lawson deserved to be given more of a chance to prove himself.    Verstappen isn't the only Formula I driver to think that way. He's one of several current drivers who have “liked” a post on Instagram criticising Red Bull’s treatment of Liam Lawson.   It’s a post by former F1 driver Giedo van der Garde which says: "Yes, you gotta perform. Yes, the pressure is insane. But, in my opinion, this comes closer to bullying or a panic move than actual high athlete achievements."    He says: "They made a decision - fully aware - gave Liam two races only to crush his spirit. Don't forget the dedication, hard work and success Liam has put in his career so far to achieve the level where he is now. Yes, he underperformed the first two races - but, if anyone's aware of that, it's himself."   Liam Lawson deserved more support, encouragement and time. And what's happened stinks.  Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:09:14 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-roadside-drug-testing-great-will-the-police-cope-mmmm/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-roadside-drug-testing-great-will-the-police-cope-mmmm/ I’m sure you’ll tell me if you think I’m stuck in the past, but I reckon that with the police now being expected to do roadside drug tests —as well as everything else— I think we should bring back the old MOT. The old traffic cops.   Officially, it was known as the traffic safety service, but we all knew it as the MOT.    And, yes, I know the police are struggling as it is to get the 500 new cops by the end of the year that the government has promised. But if they are now going to be expected to do thousands of roadside drug tests —as well as the alcohol tests and writing out tickets for speeding drivers— then I think they should create a separate, dedicated traffic division.   The way the roadside drug testing is going to work is that drivers will do a saliva test. If it’s positive, it’ll be sent to the lab for further testing. As well as that, an extra test will be done on the spot and, if that’s positive as well, the police will order them to stay off the road for 12 hours.   As someone who thinks we should have a zero alcohol limit for drivers, anything to try and catch the clowns who drive stoned is a good thing in my book. Especially when you consider the carnage that has been caused by drivers high on drugs.   Here’s a stat that proves it: in 2022 alone, 112 people died in crashes where drugs were involved. That was about 30% of all road deaths that year.   So the MOT was merged with the police in 1992 and, considering the fact that police are going to be expected to do 50,000 roadside drug tests each year as well as more roadside alcohol tests, change is needed.   The Government’s told them that instead of doing 3 million alcohol tests a year, they’re going to be expected to do 3.3 million – so an extra 300,000.   So 300,000 more alcohol tests, plus the 50,000 roadside drug tests.   I imagine Police Minister Mark Mitchell would say that the police already have a highway patrol, but I don’t think that’s going to be sufficient long-term.    And it’s why I think we should have a genuine, dedicated traffic policing service.  The other aspect of this too is that the Government has told the police that if they don’t meet these roadside testing targets —for the alcohol and for the drugs— they won't get all their funding.   So, full marks to the political parties that voted this drug-testing legislation through, but I think we’re setting the police up to fail if we don't have a re-think about how all this testing is going to be done.   And, for me, the best way to ensure this new law lives up to its promise is to have a dedicated traffic policing service. Like we used to.   Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:52:11 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-one-stadium-one-ticket-price/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-one-stadium-one-ticket-price/ Even though I live in Christchurch and pay rates in Christchurch, you’re not going to hear me saying that I should pay less to get into the new One NZ Stadium when it opens next year. But I bet there’ll be no shortage of Christchurch people thinking that’s a brilliant idea, but I don’t. It’s something that the council-owned company that will run the stadium says could happen. People who live in Christchurch city could pay less than people from anywhere else. The reason being —or the theory being— that those of us who live in the Christchurch city area have put money into the stadium through our rates and maybe that could or should be recognised by charging us Christchurch lot less for tickets. On average, every Christchurch city ratepayer pays $144 a year to go towards the cost of building the stadium. All up —at this stage— the cost to build it is $683 million, and it’s expected to be open by April next year. There’s already a precedent for locals paying less with the hot pools at New Brighton. Locals get cheapie deals there. And locals in Hurunui pay less to get into the hot pools in Hanmer Springs. But I don’t think we should go down that track with the stadium. One reason being that we will all benefit once the thing is up-and-running. The money coming into town will be brilliant, which is enough of a pay-off for me. The forecasts say it’ll put $21 million into the local economy every year. That’s enough of a return for my investment. I don’t want cheaper tickets, as well. What’s more, it would be extremely hypocritical of people who are anti-stadium and have been banging-on for years that it’s just a nice-to-have and their rates money shouldn’t be going into it, to put their hand out for cheaper tickets. The reason the levy for out-of-towners is being talked about is because it’s the promoters and the people behind the concerts and the sporting matches who set the ticket prices. So the stadium operator couldn’t give Christchurch people a discount because they don’t set the prices, but they could put an out-of-towner levy on tickets bought by people outside Christchurch city. Which would, effectively, mean Christchurch locals paying less and people elsewhere paying more. But I don’t think that would be fair. Because what about people living right on the doorstep of Christchurch city? How fair would it be to make people in Selwyn and Waimakariri, for example, pay more? It wouldn’t be fair at all. Because what we would be doing is punishing them because Christchurch City Council couldn’t get its act together on the stadium funding in the first place. It didn’t even bother —right at the outset— to try and negotiate a deal where those areas did have some skin in the game, where they did make some sort of financial contribution towards the stadium. It would also be punishing people in Selwyn and Waimakariri for their councils not being proactive. For not picking up the phone and calling Christchurch and saying they wanted to do some of the heavy lifting. Fifty percent of people in Selwyn travel into Christchurch every day for work and school. And I’ve said all along that people in Selwyn and people in Waimakariri should be contributing to the stadium through their rates. But that horse has bolted. The people who could have made that happen —the councils— didn’t. And so I’m not going to turn around now and say that us Christchurch locals should get preferential treatment. Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:43:55 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-meth-use-doubles-and-heres-what-needs-to-happen/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-meth-use-doubles-and-heres-what-needs-to-happen/ I’ve never used meth. And I hope I never do.   I say “hope” because I think that’s as certain as you can be about a drug like that.   Because none of us know what’s going to happen in the future and whether we might just find ourselves in a position where we might just feel a bit differently about using it.   I don't know how many times I’ve read stories about people saying they had no idea they'd end up using meth. And there’s no shortage of them, with use of the drug in New Zealand increasing by 96% in the past two years – nearly doubled.   Which proves to me that we are losing the battle against this drug and, if we don't do things differently, we’ll lose the war against it as well.   Which is why I agree with the Labour Party, which is saying today that it’s all well and good for the Prime Minister to be calling on his Police and Justice Ministers to look into the situation.    Quite rightly, Chris Hipkins is saying that the PM needs to bring the Health Minister into the conversation, as well. Because, whether we like it or not —however we feel about drugs of any sort— if we only keep on treating meth users as criminals, then what are we going to achieve?   Absolutely nothing. And we’ll have more and more people on the path to meth misery.    So these latest stats about how much meth is being used are quite something.   A 96% increase over two years – which is being described as unprecedented. They're saying the social harm caused by meth has a $1.5 billion cost attached to it.   And the Prime Minister says he is “quite concerned”. In fact, he’s so concerned that he’s getting his Police Minister and his Justice Minister to “look into it”.   Isn’t it brilliant? When you’re in opposition you’d talk about these numbers and describe it as it a crisis and go on about not enough being done. When you’re in government though, you’re quite concerned, and you get a couple of people to look into it.   But here’s where I struggle. You see, I'm someone who voted “no” in the cannabis referendum a few years back. And I did that because of the information void there seems to be about the mental health consequences of smoking weed.   So I said no to weed, but I seem to be a bit more liberal when it comes to meth.   I can’t explain why, because if there was another cannabis referendum today, I’d probably vote the same way. But, when it comes to meth, I'm convinced that you can’t just treat it as a crime thing.   Yes, the dealers who trade the stuff are scumbags. Which is where the Prime Minister and the Government seem to be focused – with Christopher Luxon saying it’s why they're cracking down on gangs. And why he's asked Ministers Goldsmith and Mitchell to see what else can be done.   But don't stop at those two, Prime Minister. You should also be getting Health Minister Simeon Brown and Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey involved too. Because Mitchell and Goldsmith can thump the table as much as they like. They can do all the tough guy talk, but that won't change a thing.   Because, Prime Minister, this huge increase in meth use has happened under your watch —as well as the last government's— and the strongest thing you can say about it is you’re “quite concerned”?  And the strongest thing you can do is to get your two guys in charge of catching people and locking them up to look into it?  Don’t get me wrong. The low-lifes who peddle this stuff need targeting. But, most people, when they start using meth —from what I’ve read and heard— there’s a reason.   Sure, some will give it a go for the thrill, but I reckon most people are using it to block stuff out. And, unless we do something truly meaningful which gets to the nub of what’s going with these people, treating them as criminals won’t solve it.   And by not treating meth use as a health issue, it just leaves the problem in the laps of parents, and brothers and sisters, and friends who not only have to watch someone they love get lost in addiction – they also have to try and save them, on their own.  Tue, 25 Mar 2025 00:08:56 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-are-we-really-that-scared-of-saying-what-we-think/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-are-we-really-that-scared-of-saying-what-we-think/ At the same time as Winston Peters is declaring war on wokeism, we’ve got a Christchurch community board member saying we are too scared to say things these days in case we offend people.   Ali Jones is the community board member and she’s firing back at criticisms that comments she made online about mobility car parks were "shocking".   I’ll get to her comments and the reaction but, let me say first, that I don’t agree with her that we are too scared to say things these days.   I would say the only thing that has changed is the way we say things. The language we use. Which has to be a good thing. I know some people think that being anti-hate speech is being anti-free speech, but that’s not how I see it.   It does seem to me that the people who are anti-woke or anti-pc tend to jump to conclusions about what you can or can’t say, and they use that to back-up their argument.   But if you think about how much more open people are when it comes to speaking out about all sorts of stuff, then you can’t buy into the argument that people are scared to speak.   People are speaking out way more than they used to.   So what’s happened is Ali Jones put a post on social media asking people if they thought it was weird that there are so many mobility parks on Rolleston Ave, in central Christchurch.   She said it seemed crazy to have so many mobility parks —four of them— sitting empty, while other people struggle to find somewhere to park.   And is she getting a roasting for it from a disability support group which is saying today that her comments were “shocking”.    CCS Disability Action is the group and one of its access co-ordinators, Raewyn Hailes, says it’s not-on for someone in public office to say what Ali Jones said about the mobility car parks.   She’s saying today that if a public toilet was unoccupied at times, you wouldn’t close it or remove it.   She says: “It’s extremely disappointing that someone who holds public office would make such a comment because it does have a negative impact on people. Who knows, she might need one some time.”   Ali Jones has fired back at that. She says she’s angry about it and that it shows that we are “too bloody risk averse” when it comes to saying things.   She says the criticisms are “a load of rubbish” and she asked a “straight-forward question” because she has never seen the mobility car parks used and wanted to know if anyone else had.   Ali says she isn't anti-mobility park. She just wanted to find out if other people have the same impression that she does – that they don’t get used that much. But she’s not having any of the criticism she’s getting for her comments and the questions she asked in her social media post.   She thinks the reaction from the disability support group shows why people are too scared to say anything these days. That we’re too scared to say things in case we offend people or upset them.   But I disagree. Yes, we’ve changed the way we say certain things and, maybe, Ali could have chosen another way to find out what she wanted to find out about the mobility parks. Maybe she could have worded it differently.   But just because you might disagree with what another person says, telling them you disagree isn’t shutting them down. It isn’t cancelling them.  Sun, 23 Mar 2025 23:52:59 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-how-to-honour-chch-cathedrals-past-without-being-stuck-in-it/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-how-to-honour-chch-cathedrals-past-without-being-stuck-in-it/ Here's an idea that I’m quite excited about.   It’s quite raw – it only occurred to me at about 5:30 this morning. But I reckon it could be a solution to something that has gone on for way too long, with no sign of it ending.   There is a one-day exhibition being held inside the Christchurch Cathedral today, of miniature models of buildings that went in the earthquakes.    It’s happening today-only at the cathedral and will move to the Arts Centre next week.  But I reckon this is what we should be doing with the cathedral permanently. Instead of ploughing more money into restoring it any further, I think it should be kept as it is and used as a public space for things like exhibitions, events, and indoor markets.   Which would also free-up the rest of Cathedral Square for re-development and potentially open the door for government funding to smooth out any rough edges because it would be a truly public facility.    Because when the Government said no to putting more taxpayer money into the restoration, it said so because Finance Minister Nicola Willis didn’t see it as a truly public facility.   But this would be, wouldn’t it?    Some money would be needed to do things like reinstate the rose window at the front. Tidy up the roof tiles if they need to be. The sort of stuff that would make it tidy enough and safe enough to be a permanent fixture, but not the complete restoration and everything that goes with that.    The exhibition happening there today, by the way, is called “Ghosts on Every Corner”. Thirteen miniatures of places such as the old Smith's bookstore, Echo Records, Java Café, the police kiosk and the Deans Ave salesyard building.   As I’ve said before, social licence for the cathedral restoration is disappearing fast. And that’s because as time goes on, a whole generation has come through with no connection to the place. And that’s going to continue.   So we need to face that fact and come up with a different way of honouring the past - than just sticking to this pipedream that one day, somehow, we’ll have the money needed to finish the full restoration.   I’m not saying we could do this overnight, but if the city and the church committed to this idea, then we’d have way more certainty than we have now.   And not just certainty about the cathedral building, we’d also have certainty about Cathedral Square. Because once all the fencing around the site goes and the place is being used as an indoor events centre or indoor market, then the rest of the area can be developed.   It would also keep the cathedral story alive. Because, at the moment, the cathedral story is at a standstill.   Having the shell and using it in different ways would visually preserve a piece of the Square’s history without it being a handbrake on anything else happening in the area.   So the sorts of things I see happening there would be exhibitions, like what’s happening there today, musical performances, and an indoor market.    On the money side of things, the cathedral project people went to the Government because they don't have the $85 million they reckon they need to finish it. Nicola Willis told them they were dreaming because “public use would be limited due to the cathedral being a private, religious space."   And not long after that, I asked her if Canterbury Museum —which is also short of money for its redevelopment— would have a better chance of getting money from the Government.   She said it would, because it’s a public facility.   Which is what the cathedral would be if —instead of a church— it was effectively a central city events centre bringing locals and visitors together in a building that honours the past but isn’t stuck in the past.   I think it's a no-brainer.    Fri, 21 Mar 2025 00:20:16 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-an-apprenticeship-is-anything-but-second-best/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-an-apprenticeship-is-anything-but-second-best/ I always have and always will be a huge fan of on-the-job training. Which is why I think it’s brilliant that we’ve got an education expert saying today that the apprenticeship system needs an overhaul.   And not only that, he wants to see schools doing more, and is suggesting they could offer a trades preparation qualification to create a pipeline of new apprentices - but also to remove the stigma that an apprenticeship is second fiddle to a university degree.    Michael Johnston from the NZ Initiative think-tank says in Germany, 50% of school-leavers end up in working in the trades. But here in New Zealand, a university education is given much higher status than apprenticeship training.   He says we need a more coherent apprenticeship system connecting schools, the trades and the training organisations.    Michael Johnston is saying that part of the problem is that trades historically have been seen or have been promoted as the thing kids do if they’re not bright enough to go to university or not interested in going to university.   Which is crazy for a number of reasons – for starters, I marvel all the time at what tradespeople know and what they can do.   He says maybe we also need some sort of bonding system that would keep require tradespeople once they’ve finished their apprenticeship to stick around and not bugger off somewhere else.    He says that would probably encourage more employers to take someone on in the first place. He might have a point there, but I suspect that businesses look at apprentices and just see extra work.   I don't think they’re necessarily concerned whether the apprentice is going to stick around once they’ve got their qualification.   But the idea of his that I really like, is this bit where he says schools need to up their game when it comes to promoting trades and getting kids ready to move into a trade.   Because I think, over the years, schools —but, in particular, school careers advisors— have pointed kids in the wrong direction, making them think that a university degree is the be-all and end-all.   Another reason why I’m so excited at the ideas Michael Johnston is pushing today, is that on-the-job training is how I started my working life. So maybe I’m biased.   I wanted to be a journalist, so I did a cadetship at the local newspaper.   And, since then, I have been dismayed at how so many people have been sucked in by this idea that a university degree is way better than an apprenticeship or any other form of on-the-job training.   Of course, there are some professions where people have to go to university – law, medicine, engineering are examples.   But I have never understood why a degree makes someone a better journalist, for example.   The other great thing about apprenticeships is that someone can start one, realise they're not actually cut out for that particular trade, and move on to something else without racking up huge debt and then, after three or four years, realising they’re not cut out for the career they studied for.   A guy I went to school with took on a plumbing apprenticeship when he left. Realised pretty quickly it wasn’t him, then moved an electrical apprenticeship and flourished.   The other thing about all of this is that it seems we’ve been saying forever that we need more apprenticeships, and we need to take the trades more seriously, but nothing seems to have changed.   Maybe it’s because —if we’re really honest— we’ve been so brainwashed over the years and still believe that that you only do a trade if you’re not bright enough to go to university.   Hopefully, there aren’t any careers advisors who still hold on to that view. Because I agree completely that the apprenticeship system needs an overhaul and the stigma that an apprenticeship is second-best to a university degree needs to go.   Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:25:42 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-whats-so-bad-about-political-parties-having-a-go-at-council-elections/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-whats-so-bad-about-political-parties-having-a-go-at-council-elections/ David Seymour says the ACT Party wants to put up candidates in this year’s local body elections because “it’s time for a clean-out”. Whatever his motivation is, I think his plan to get ACT involved in local councils is a good thing. Some people think political parties shouldn’t be involved in local councils, but what would you prefer? If someone’s wearing a party badge, at least you know what they stand for. Anyone else, and it can be a guessing game. And I agree with Seymour when he says it would be way better to know where people stand when you vote for them for your local council.   I’d go further than what he says. He reckons that people end up voting for people they have no idea about, but I actually think that people don’t bother voting in the first place because they’ve got no idea about the candidates.   Or more to the point, they’ve got no real idea what the candidates stand for.   Yes, every candidate trots out the usual lines, but you never really know them. Which is why you seem to see so many ex-media people in local government.   They have a profile and people end up voting for them just because they recognise their name, which is a terrible thing to base your vote on.   Which is why I think it would be great if, not just ACT, but more political parties were upfront, selected candidates, gave them a party t-shirt, and said “this is our person. Vote for them”.   The reason I say “upfront" is because we all know that one of the local government groupings in Christchurch is the Labour Party in plain clothing. This is People’s Choice.   There are other groupings too, but everyone knows that People’s Choice is Labour.        If you have a look at their website, it looks pretty similar to Labour’s website. But the most obvious thing is right at the bottom of the People’s Choice homepage, where it says: “Authorised by Reuben Davidson”. Who, of course, is Labour’s Christchurch East MP.    So David Seymour says his reason for wanting to get ACT involved in local body politics is that he doesn’t think councils have read the room and haven’t taken it on board that people are sick of councils blowing money left, right, and centre.   On the money side of it, Seymour says ACT won’t be financing the campaigns of their local body candidates. They’ll have to do their own fundraising to pay for their campaigns.   Which I think is good. As he puts it: “You’re not going to see helicopter candidates funded from outside your town. If you can’t fundraise money for your campaign, maybe people are trying to tell you something.”   So, for me, it’s a win-win and I’d like to see more political parties doing the same.  Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:57:26 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-we-shouldnt-be-in-the-dark-to-the-reality-of-bullying/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-we-shouldnt-be-in-the-dark-to-the-reality-of-bullying/ Isn't it crazy that schools don't have to report how much bullying is going on? The Chief Children's Commissioner thinks so too, which is why she’s saying that it should be mandatory for schools to provide regular, publicly-available numbers. No wonder some parents feel their school isn’t doing enough about bullying. Because, if you don’t have to report it, it's much easier to sweep under the carpet, isn’t it? Thankfully, our kids never had any serious problems with bullying. And I'm pretty sure I didn’t, either, when I was at school. I had a few run-ins and there were probably some kids I knew to avoid. And one of the two high schools I went to in Dunedin was pretty violent. But I'm pretty sure I wasn’t the victim of bullying. Unlike a lot of other people who were or are. Although, maybe I can't say that, because we don’t know the numbers. And I don’t think we have a hope in hell of doing anything meaningful about school bullying until we do. Because, at the moment, we only hear about individual cases. A couple of years back, I remember Ashburton College being in the news on a regular basis, with parents and students talking about bullying being bad there. And I remember, of course, the school trotting out the usual lines about how it takes bullying seriously. Which, to be fair, it probably did. I haven’t come across a school yet that turns a completely blind eye to it. But, because they don't have to keep records and numbers and share them with the Ministry of Education and make them publicly-available, we don't how seriously schools really take it. Claire Achmad, the Chief Children’s Commissioner, is saying today: “I am keen to see regular, publicly reported data about bullying in schools, so we can continue to understand the scale and nature of the problem for children and young people.”  She’s being polite and is saying she’d “like” to see it. I’m saying that we have to see it. Because, imagine if you could access this kind of data. Do you think schools would make sure they did everything possible about bullying? Of course they would. They would probably do a lot more than some do at the moment. Some schools will be better than others. I see that the secondary school teachers union is acknowledging that it’s a bit of a “blind spot”. Chris Abercrombie of the Post-Primary Teachers Association, says doing more about bullying could be part of the answer to the problem we’ve got with so many kids not turning up at school. Which makes sense. Because, if you’re being bullied at school, that’s the last place you going to want to be, isn’t it? He says there's no national plan for dealing with bullying. And that, for me, is the gap that needs filling. As well as mandatory reporting of bullying, which is what the Chief Children's Commissioner is calling for. Because this lack of a national plan means individual school boards have the job of dealing with it. I know. I served on a school board for about six years and it was on us to decide what to do when a case of bullying came up. So every school board in the country is doing its own thing and they are under no compulsion to share any intel with the Ministry of Education and parents. And, until they do, we will be in the dark as to how much of a problem bullying actually is. Sun, 16 Mar 2025 23:40:31 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-road-rage-is-getting-worse-heres-what-needs-to-happen/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-road-rage-is-getting-worse-heres-what-needs-to-happen/ Road rage is getting worse according to survey results out today, and I think it’s time we made road rage a specific criminal offence.    I’ll come back to that but, first, how about this for a story? A guy’s driving around Governor’s Bay when this boy racer starts tailgating him, then stops in front of him, pulls out a baseball bat and starts smashing the guy’s windscreen.   That was a week ago.    Then we had someone else sent to prison last week after stabbing someone in an apparent road rage incident in Riccarton. It happened back in September on the corner of Blenheim Road and Clarence Street when two guys got into an argument.   The guy who was sent to prison last week got out of his car with a pair of scissors and stabbed this other guy before taking off.   He turned himself into the police sometime after that, and he was sentenced last week.  So you consider cases like that and the incident in Governors Bay the weekend before last, and you think no wonder we’ve got new stats out today saying nearly 50% of Canterbury people think road rage has got worse here in the past year. It's 60% in Auckland.    So, surely, the time has come for us to make road rage an actual criminal offence?   At the moment, no one can be charged with road rage. It can lead to people being charged with things like assault, intent to injure, and reckless driving. But I think road rage needs to be made a specific offence.   I see it in the same light as the stalking laws the Government wants to introduce. Like road rage, stalking can lead to people being charged with other offences.   So why not do the same with road rage?   AA Insurance has found that, broadly, 1-in-10 Kiwis have been involved in a road rage incident of some sort in the past year.   They’ve experienced things like tailgating, being cut off by another driver, being tooted at excessively, and being yelled or screamed at by another driver.    Exactly the sort of thing this guy on Banks Peninsula went through. According to his post on Facebook last night, it was 12:10am and this boy racer was tailgating him when he, obviously, at some point overtook this guy, stopped in front of him, got out with a baseball bat and started smashing up the guy’s car.   And he’s now on Facebook asking people who live in the area if they’ve got any security footage that might help identify the vehicle involved.   He’s trying to track-down a Rego number so the police can, maybe, do something about it. Because, according to his post, the police didn’t do anything on the night.   Although the police have told our newsroom this morning that he was “unable to make a statement at the time” and was provided with information to help him report the incident online. The police did confirm that it was reported to them just after midnight on Sunday March 2.   The guy who was attacked has posted a photo online showing the windscreen smashed on the driver’s side. It must have been absolutely terrifying for him.   As Beau Paparoa, who is one of the bosses at AA Insurance, is saying today - things like tailgating not only increases the risk of rear-end collisions. It’s also distressing and dangerous for the people being tailgated.   But it goes next level when you’ve got some muppet not only tailgating you, then passing you, and stopping right in front of you, and getting out of their car and taking to yours with a baseball bat.   I don't think leaving things as they are and only charging people with other offences, and not charging them specifically with road rage, is going to do anything to fix the problem.   From my experience, I would say road rage has been a major problem for a long time now. Whether I can say that I think it’s got worse here in the past 12 months, I don’t know, but a lot of people think it has.   So surely the time has come to up the ante and make road rage a criminal offence.   Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:02:22 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-taking-away-the-environment-court-is-a-bad-idea/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-taking-away-the-environment-court-is-a-bad-idea/ I don’t like this idea of dangling bigger carrots in front of people who own land that the government or your local council might want for big infrastructure projects.   But I'm more concerned about denying people who object access to the Environment Court. Instead of the court, if someone isn’t happy about compulsory sale of their land, they’ll have to complain to the Land Information Minister or their local council – depending on who it is that wants their land.   And we know who’s going to win that argument every time, don’t we?    “Dear Minister, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.”   “Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.”   Or "Dear council, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.”   “Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.”   The changes are being promoted as a cost-saving exercise and a way of getting big infrastructure projects happening sooner. The Government wants these changes so that big projects don’t get bogged down.    And the way it’s going to do that is by paying people more money to get their land if it’s needed for a big infrastructure project.    That’s if they agree up front. Because, if a landowner agrees upfront and doesn’t challenge it then there will, of course, be less expense involved.    The Government wants these changes to get cracking on its roads of national significance and its other fast-track projects.    It's all to do with the Public Works Act. Which is the legislation that means if your house is sitting somewhere where the Government or your local council wants to build something like a new motorway, they can knock on your door and tell you that they’re buying your house.   It’s a compulsory acquisition of a property that isn't on the market but is needed for public works.   At the moment, if people don’t want to sell, they can go to the Environment Court. But the Government wants to do-away with that and I don’t agree with that at all.  I suspect that if you’re not affected, this sounds like a great idea. But if it’s your land that the Government or your local council wants to get its hands on, you might feel a bit differently.   I don't even need to be in the position of owning land the Government wants to take off me to know that taking away the right to go to the Environment Court is a bad idea.   Tell that to Land Information Minister Chris Penk, though. He says: "Public infrastructure projects up and down the country are often held up for years by overly complex, drawn-out processes for purchasing the land needed."   He goes on to say: “This has meant that projects which would provide massive benefits for communities end up stalled, with the only action happening in courtrooms.”   Pretty much every time you talk to someone who is anti-the environment court, they start going on about snails on the West Coast.   You’ll remember this one: about 20 years ago, Solid Energy wanted to build a mine where there were these giant snails and Forest & Bird went to the Environment Court trying to stop it.    What seems to have got lost over time is that the Environment Court agreed with Forest & Bird but didn’t have authority to intervene. It was then that Forest & Bird went to the High Court. Which led to Solid Energy paying for 6,000 of these snails to be relocated from the Stockton Plateau, so it could access $400 million worth of coal.   People who think the Environment Court is a handbrake on progress often refer to that case, and see it as good reason for getting the Environment Court out of the picture.   But I don’t see it that way. The Environment Court is a backstop. A backstop people should not be denied access to if they don't want to sell their land to the government or their local council.    Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:14:30 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-winston-had-no-option/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-winston-had-no-option/ Winston Peters had no option when it came to sacking Phil Goff from his job as High Commissioner in London, but that doesn’t mean I’m happy with it.   I think he’s done the right thing. But he’s done the wrong thing, as well.   Because it just shows how scaredy-cat the world is of Donald Trump. But we better get used to it – this is how it’s going to be for the next four years.    That’s why I accept that it needed to be done, but it’s still pretty cruddy that we are running scared of him like this. What Goff did was he let the political nerd in him come out when he was at an event at Chatham House, in London, earlier this week. And it looked like it was some sort of Q&A session involving Finland’s Foreign Affairs Minister. The significance of Finland, of course, is that it shares a border with Russia.   So Phil Goff had the roving microphone, and he asked Elina Valtonen whether she thought Donald Trump understood the history of the second world war. That’s because people are likening what Trump is doing with Ukraine to what happened in 1938, when Nazi Germany was allowed to get its hands on land in Czechoslovakia in a bid to avoid war.    It was a deal signed in 1938, but, as we know, a year later Germany still went to war.   Phil Goff isn’t the first person to say it. And on the face of it, it doesn’t seem that outrageous, but in diplomatic circles, it was probably enough to have them spilling their G&Ts.   And it was certainly enough for Foreign Minister Winston Peters to tell his people in London to give Phil Goff the flick. Winston Peters says the reason he did it was because Goff’s comments “do not represent the views of the New Zealand government and make his position as High Commissioner to London untenable.”   And former High Commissioner Sir Lockwood Smith agrees. He’s in no doubt that Winston Peters has done the right thing to minimise any damage.    Phil Goff was due to finish his posting later this year, but that could have been extended, of course. But he’s over there right now and all the diplomatic crew will be chattering.    So it will be very embarrassing for Goff. Not the way he would’ve wanted to go out.   Especially, given that as far as I’m aware, it’s the first time New Zealand has sacked a High Commissioner.    Yes, he was being a bit of a smart-alec, something you’re not supposed to be when you move around in diplomatic circles. Which is a tension that Sir Lockwood talked about when he was on 九一星空无限talk ZB this morning.   He was saying that when you’ve been a politician, it can sometimes be difficult to take your political hat off. But he reckons that his time as speaker before being a High Commissioner helped prepare him for that.   Maybe that’s why we’re not hearing about former speaker Trevor Mallard putting his foot in it over in Ireland, where he’s High Commissioner.   But perhaps Phil Goff can take some comfort from Dr Stephen Winter, who is an international relations expert at Auckland University. He’s says if things weren’t so on edge around the world, Goff might have got away with it.    He says: "Goff can take comfort from the fact that he is right, even though he was not diplomatic.”   But things are on edge, and Goff is off.   Thu, 06 Mar 2025 23:51:04 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-orrs-job-was-to-re-build-the-rock-star-economy-not-be-the-rock-star/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-orrs-job-was-to-re-build-the-rock-star-economy-not-be-the-rock-star/ I'm neither happy or unhappy that Adrian Orr is no longer Reserve Bank Governor, but I do have a piece of advice for whoever ends up taking over from him.   Just be the complete opposite.    Because I reckon he fell into a trap that ended up with him getting too big for his boots. Which, maybe, is very hard to avoid when you’re in a job like his, but the next person needs to make sure they stay in their lane and keeps themselves in check.   When you’re the Reserve Bank Governor, your job is to work on creating a rock star economy - you’re not the rock star yourself.   No one can argue that his tenure coincided with a time when what you would consider to be the most grey and dull jobs in the world, took on a whole new meaning.   Ashley Bloomfield, for example. Because of COVID, everyone knew who he was.    And Adrian Orr. Because of COVID, he was elevated to a level no other reserve bank governor got to in terms of profile and recognition.   If you ask me to name another Reserve Bank Governor, the only name that comes to my head straight away is Don Brash. That’s because of his political career that he got into after he left the bank.   And if I think a little bit more, there’s Alan Bollard. But that's it.   But everyone pretty much knows who Adrian Orr is and I think it went to his head. I think he loved the limelight, and, in the process, he got a bit too cocky. I think he lost sight of what his job was actually all about.   Nevertheless, I don’t think he personally is to blame for everything when it comes to us feeling more hard up than ever.   And, if he hadn’t fallen into the trap of letting the job go to his head, he might not be copping as much criticism as he has and is.  I’m with economist Tony Alexander who is saying today that business people and homeowners who blame Orr for their cashflow problems are both right and wrong.   He’s saying that they're right in that he oversaw the continuation of excessively loose spending during 2021 and into 2022, which over-stimulated the economy and pushed inflation up to 7.3%.   He also was boss of the Reserve Bank when the official cash rate reached 5.5%. And then got it down to 2.2% by what Tony Alexander describes as Orr “crunching the economy”.   But he also says, let’s not forget Labour’s Grant Robertson’s role in all of this.   He was the guy who kept fiscal policy loose.   My understanding is that staff at the Reserve Bank had no idea this was coming until after it was announced to the media. Which is a shocker. And, apparently, staff at the bank have no idea what’s behind it.   I’m picking that he’s thrown his toys out of the cot because the Government wants to cut the budgets at the Reserve Bank. And a lot of that will have to do with what the Government probably sees as the former Governor’s obsession with things outside what it considers core business for the central bank.   But, from the very limited things that have been said since the announcement yesterday afternoon, it’s obvious that he’s quit.   Because when the chair of the bank Neil Quigley said it was “a personal decision” by Adrian Orr, that says he’s quit. It doesn't say he’s leaving for personal reasons, it says he’s walking away.   He’s going to be on the payroll until the end of the month, but he’s not Governor of the bank anymore. An acting Governor took over at midday yesterday.   The other thing too about all this secrecy, is that I don't think it’s acceptable when you’ve got a senior public servant who earns more than $800,000 a year quitting like this.   On the basis of what we kind-of know, I think we deserve more of an explanation.   If the guy’s thrown a hissy fit - tell us. Because, for someone who seemed to love the limelight as much as he did, disappearing the way he has is not only very strange, it’s also somewhat disrespectful.  Wed, 05 Mar 2025 23:36:47 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-pm-just-doesnt-get-it-does-he/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-pm-just-doesnt-get-it-does-he/ I’m still getting over the Prime Minister saying if people don't like the food provided by the school lunch programme, they should make a marmite sandwich.   And quite rightly, his comments are being described by the principal of a school in Kaiapoi as “absolutely disgraceful”. And I couldn’t agree more.   Jason Miles is the principal of Kaiapoi North School and he’s bang on – that talk from the PM was disgraceful.   And he says it just shows that Christopher Luxon has had a gutsful of the school lunches thing. He says: "He (the PM) is out of touch with the current inequities that didn't exist in his time."   Jason Miles is saying what we all know – that kids can’t learn when they're hungry because they are easily distracted, and they get restless.    He says: “A healthy, nutritious, tasty lunch could be the only substantial meal that child gets for the whole day and a marmite sandwich and an apple is probably ok some days, but we want to know we are going to get a consistently, healthy nutritious meal for our children so they can learn."   And that’s the point here. We can bang on all we like about us going to school when we were kids with just a marmite sandwich - maybe a bit fancy on it some days with a piece of lettuce as well. Or sandwiches with luncheon in them.   And yes, we did just fine. Just like Christopher Luxon did. But here’s the difference - we went to school in the morning with some breakfast in our belly and we went home at night to an evening meal.   But that seems to be lost on the Prime Minister. Which is why this principal from Kaiapoi North School is saying today that Christopher Luxon’s appalling comments show just how out of touch he is.   Last night, this thing came through on my social media feed and it was a video the “How to Dad” guy, Jordan Watson was fronting. It was promoting KidsCan and he was reading letters that teachers had sent-in talking about poverty in their schools.   One of them talked about two siblings at the school and how each of them only turned up every second day, and the teacher got a bit sick of that and went to have a word with one of them. And the kid explained that they had to share shoes, and it was his turn to wear the shoes that day and that’s why he was at school and his sibling wasn’t.   That’s the world that people like this Kaiapoi North School principal knows about. And I know the Prime Minister will say he knows about it too, but I don't think he does.   He’s out of touch.   Maybe he hasn’t heard what happened at that school in Murchison last week. The lunches arrived and they were so hot that the plastic had melted, and it wasn’t until the kids had been eating for a bit that they realised they'd been eating plastic.   How can he tell those kids to eat a marmite sandwich if they don't like it?   No wonder Education Minister Erica Stanford wants and explanation from Associate Minister David Seymour.   She must have had her head in her hands when she heard the boss banging on about marmite sandwiches on 九一星空无限talk ZB yesterday morning and then coming out with the same nonsense in parliament.  It was disgraceful and shows that, when it comes down to it, the PM has no idea what life is really like for some kids in our country.  Tue, 04 Mar 2025 23:45:09 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-weasel-words-arent-the-way-to-respond-to-destinys-hate-speech/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-weasel-words-arent-the-way-to-respond-to-destinys-hate-speech/ I am so glad that I’m not a member of the local rainbow community. Because if I was, I would be despairing at the weasel words the Christchurch mayor and the city council are trotting out about the Destiny Church's despicable disruption of the pride month opening event in Christchurch on Saturday.   And it just tells me that people are either scared of taking on the Destiny Church or they somehow think their hatred is okay.   So what happened at the weekend is the annual “walk for support” for LGBTQIA+ people wound up at the Bridge of Remembrance, and these muppets from the Destiny Church were there protesting against them.   They were carrying signs saying things about puberty blockers and child abuse and telling the people there to “repent”.   They also had a speaker system there, which they shouldn't have. But no one did anything about it.   Which is why a local rainbow campaigner is saying that the city council should apologise for not shutting down this illegal protest driven by nothing more than hatred.   And I agree. But I don't think that’s going to be coming anytime soon, considering the weasel words being trotted out by mayor Phil Mauger and the council's chief executive.   Phil Mauger is saying that everyone has the right to protest but it was “not polite” of the Destiny Church to set up their loudspeakers right beside the event.   He says it was “quite disappointing”, but he’s pleased things didn't get out of control like they did when the Destiny Church went awol at that pride event in Auckland the other week.   So that’s the mayor. But it gets even worse with what the council’s chief executive is saying.   Mary Richardson says: “We have to respect other people’s democratic right to protest, even if we don’t agree with their views.”    And the strongest action the council took was to send out a noise control officer - who found that there weren’t any noise limit breaches. Do me a favour.    That’s not all. There’s some classic passing-of-the-buck going on, with the council saying that it’s the job of the police to deal with public disturbances and the police saying permission to set-up loudspeakers is the job of the council and so the council has to deal with it, which is why the noise control officer was sent out.   But could you get a more lame response if you tried? But remember that this isn’t the first time that the Christchurch City Council has turned a blind eye to the Destiny Church.   You’ll remember how it waived $50,000 in fines that it had sent the church for the disruption caused by its anti-vax mandate protests during covid. That was all to do with Destiny Church not following the rules, not working with the council so it could make sure that traffic management was sorted.   But the council ripped those tickets up. Derek Tait from Destiny had a cup of tea with former mayor Lianne Dalziell and all was forgiven.    And it’s doing the exact same thing with these weasel words about the Destiny crew's behaviour on Saturday.   This is the council, let me remind you, that was all in favour of putting a rainbow crossing somewhere in town. Which, when it comes down to it, doesn't take much fortitude.   Yes, paint the crossing. I’m all for it.   But, when it comes down to it, painting a road crossing is nothing like staring down those clowns from the Destiny Church and telling them that their messages of hatred are not welcome.   And telling them that we’ve had a gutsful of them not giving a damn about the rules.  Rules that you and I would be expected to follow. And, if we didn't, there’d be consequences. Not if you're the Destiny Church, though, it seems.   So I’m with the pride campaigners who are saying today that the council could’ve and should’ve done a lot more on Saturday when the Destiny muppets turned up at this event. But the council didn’t - and, for that, it should apologise.   But that’s not all. The mayor and his council need to condemn Destiny Church for their messages of hatred.  If the strongest thing Phil Mauger can say is that “wasn’t polite” of them to do what they did, then don’t expect them to pull their heads in anytime soon.   Mon, 03 Mar 2025 23:54:17 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-four-year-terms-for-councils-no-thanks/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-four-year-terms-for-councils-no-thanks/ When the Government announced yesterday that it wants to have a binding referendum on a four-year parliamentary term here in New Zealand, I was all for it.   I've been all for it for a while now.  But I’m totally against the idea that we do the same with local councils. In fact, I’m so against it, that it could be enough to put me off voting in favour of a four-year parliamentary term.   That’s how strongly I feel about it.   Four-year local government terms is something the outfit representing most councils, Local Government New Zealand, has been wanting for a while now.    Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger has jumped on the bandwagon too. He also thinks that a four-year term would be great for councils.   He might feel that way, and Local Government New Zealand might feel that way, but it’s the last thing we want for our local councils.  There are a couple of reasons why I’m comfortable with central government getting a four-year term. First and foremost, I don’t think three years is enough time for governments to get stuff done.    The other reason why I’m good with central governments getting an extra year in power is that governments, generally, are pretty functional.   That's because if you’re in government, you have to toe the party line. I know David Seymour and Winston Peters test that a bit, but that’s MMP and it’s what coalition governments are all about. But generally, governments keep it together and stick together for the full term.    Councils though – completely different story. Just the other day we had a councillor in Christchurch accusing the mayor of lacking leadership.    We’ve got factions around that table, and I don’t imagine other councils are any different. Why on earth would you want to drag that out for an extra year?   How often do you hear Phil Mauger and his supporters lamenting the fact that he doesn’t have enough like-minded councillors around the table with him and how that impedes him from making any meaningful change? You hear it all the time.   Why would you want to give that lot an extra year? The answer is you wouldn’t.   With central government ministers, for example, if they do a hopeless job they either lose their portfolios or they resign.   A mayor can’t do that. A mayor of any council is stuck with whoever we vote and put into council alongside them.   Wellington is another brilliant example of a dysfunctional council. Why would people there want to lumber their city with that line-up for another year? They wouldn’t.   Aside from the fact that most councillors in most councils find it hard to get on with each other, the other thing that makes local government in less need of a four-year term than central government, is that councils are actually much better than central government when it comes to long-term planning.  Not to get too bogged down in council-speak, but councils have these 10-year plans. Governments don’t. With councils, you don’t have the holus-bolus cancelling of stuff that you can get when there’s a change of government, either.   At the council, there’s a plan in place and after an election you just have a new lot overseeing it. So this argument that councils need more time to get stuff done doesn’t wash with me. Unlike governments. Which do.    Because governments come in and change policies and do things like cancel ferry contracts. The disruption can be huge.   And they need more time, if anything, to clean up the mess they can create when they’re first elected.     So for me, the differences between central government and local government are huge and thinking they both need to four-year terms is nonsense.   And as I say, if councils getting four-year terms is the by-product of central government getting four-year terms, then I’ll be voting “no” in the referendum.   Thu, 27 Feb 2025 23:43:07 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-chch-council-should-be-red-faced-over-red-zone-decision/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-chch-council-should-be-red-faced-over-red-zone-decision/ Don’t you get it?   I’m not saying this to you – I’m saying it to the Christchurch City Council, which thinks there is no need to have locals on this new committee its setting up to oversee the red zone on the east side of Christchurch.   This is the 600-hectare Ōtākaro/Avon River Corridor which has attracted all sorts of controversy since the government took it over after the earthquakes.   Tens of thousands of people used to live in the area before 2011. Not anymore.    There is a plan to do something with it. It’s a long-term plan, but this committee is being set-up to look after things for the time being. And the council is demonstrating classic council arrogance, thinking it doesn’t need to include any of the people who have put their hearts and souls into the area.  And instead, it’s setting up a committee involving people from the local iwi and the council itself.   People who will sit around the table, make decisions, and it will all be very convenient because they won’t have to deal with those pesky locals.    Pesky locals who used to live in the area, went through the trauma of being turfed out after the quakes, but didn't turn their back on it.   They stayed involved. Stayed committed to the future of this 11-kilometre stretch of land that goes from pretty much the centre of town out to the east.   But they don't need to be involved in any of the official stuff – that’s what the council thinks. And I completely disagree with what it’s doing.   And I know exactly why the council is doing this. It’s excluding the locals from this new committee because people who aren’t part of the local government machine are a pain in the backside.   Again, I’m not saying that, but that’s how councils and government agencies see it.   They like to keep people at arm's reach. Fobbing us off with the old line about consultation and having an opportunity to have our say at some point.   But what these outfits miss is that we are over being fobbed off in that way. In fact, most people are over being consulted. So why wouldn't you let the people who are actually passionate about the area get involved in a more official capacity? It makes absolutely no sense to me.    So what’s happened is 32 people representing most groups working in the river corridor have written an open letter to the mayor, the deputy mayor, and local iwi, telling them that there needs to be a local on this committee.   And the really important thing to note here, is that no one knows how long this committee is going to be in place.   The regeneration plan for the red zone will take decades and this committee could be around for yonks. Which is why there has to be more than just council and iwi reps on it.   Surely we know by now that, when it comes to anything to do with post-earthquake recovery, nothing happens on time. Things take years and we often look up and realise that some short-term temporary thing is going on for ever.   Which this committee could end up doing. Let's face it, it probably will.   And, let’s face it, anything that has been happening in the area so far has been led by the community.   For them to be shut out by the council at this point is a slap in the face and the council must confirm that a member of the local community will be on this committee from day one.  Wed, 26 Feb 2025 23:55:33 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-im-5050-when-it-comes-to-citizens-arrests/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-im-5050-when-it-comes-to-citizens-arrests/ I’m 50/50 on this idea the Government’s got of letting people do citizens arrests.   For security guards? Yes. For every other member of the public? It’s a definite no for me.  Let’s start with security guards and why I think these powers would be good for them.   How long have we been saying that they need more teeth to do their job? Ages.  And what we’ve meant by that, is the ability or the right to actually provide security as opposed to standing at the door and pretty much doing nothing when someone nicks stuff from a shop or assaults someone.   I think it's fair to say that at the moment, security guards only really come to life at sports matches. Everywhere else, they're about as threatening as the person who stands at the door at Bunnings. Or parent help at the Year 8 disco. So, yes, change the law to the extent where security guards are enabled to be more effective than they are now.  There is one proviso, though: we will have to make sure that security guards are screened and trained even better than they are now.  I think too, security firms will have to consider the type of people they employ. Because if the law changes and security guards have the right to detain people, then we’re going to have to have security guards who are physically capable of doing it.   When I look around now at some of the security guards outside places like banks, for example, I can’t imagine some of them being capable of dragging someone to the ground and sitting on them until the cops arrive.   But as for the rest of us being allowed to make citizens arrests – forget about it. For many reasons.   For me, it’s not a particular line in the Crimes Act that stops me from intervening when I see someone breaking the law. I have never, and never will, make a citizen's arrest because I’ve got no idea what I’m taking on.   I’m not the largest person in the world, but even if I was, you’d never get me intervening. Because you just don't know what someone is on, what they’re capable of, and what weapon they might be carrying.   I had an experience recently where a guy, completely off his face on something, was assaulting another guy.   And straight away I thought ‘I’m not getting involved here’. And when I say not getting involved, I mean physically. It wasn’t the law stopping me - it was my own personal safety that stopped me.    I did stick around though, and I called the cops. But there was no way I was going to take him on, and there is no way I’d attempt any sort of citizen's arrest.   But I reckon the really dangerous aspect of this is the licence it would give muppets out there to take the law into their own hands.   You’ll know as much as me, that there are people who would just love to have the law on their side. Thinking they're Bodie and Doyle from The Professionals TV show.    And while I’m not one to stick up for criminals, I wouldn’t want them getting roughed up unnecessarily by the vigilante types who would see this law change as a licence to do whatever they wanted to detain someone.  What’s more, this law change would go completely against everything the police tell us about not intervening and putting ourselves in danger.   For the same reasons why I will never do it: you have no idea what someone is capable of doing, especially if they’re high on drugs, and you don’t know what weapons they might be carrying. Tue, 25 Feb 2025 23:49:37 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-in-2025-you-dont-touch-people-at-work/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-in-2025-you-dont-touch-people-at-work/ Who would want to be Andrew Bayly today?  The disgraced, now former minister, resigned because he touched a staff member during what he’s describing as an “animated discussion”.    And now his political career is toast. As it should be, because in 2025, you just don’t touch people in the workplace.   You don't touch people in the workplace when you’re happy with them, and you certainly don't touch people in the workplace when you’re angry with them. You just don’t do it.    He’s staying on as the MP for Port Waikato, but he’ll be gone by the next election. National won’t want a bar of him.   Some will think there's nothing wrong with touching someone on the arm. What's so bad about that?   I’ll tell you what’s wrong with that. When you touch someone on the arm during a so-called “animated discussion", that’s intimidating behaviour. That’s threatening. In some circumstances, it could be considered assault.   So you just don’t do it. But he did and he’s gone. Not completely —he’s lurking in the backbenches— but quite a downfall.    And you might think he had it coming anyway after that incident at the vineyard where he called one of the workers a loser for still being at work after hours.   So he’s a bit free-and-loose on it.   And that could be a generational thing as much as anything. Because I know even in the course of my career, how much things have changed when it comes to what is and isn't acceptable in the workplace.   I think, having started my working life in a newspaper newsroom, I’m probably a bit more lenient in my thinking.   I certainly know that when I came back to the media after being away from newsrooms for about 14 years, I noticed how different it was, and the media certainly isn't as brutal as it used to be.   This is in terms of people being treated with respect, and I think it's brilliant.   I remember my first newspaper boss was what we probably called a “colourful character” back in those days.   He called me boy. He called all the other blokes boy. He even called the women working there boy.   Andrew Bayly is in his early-60s. So he’s from an era where people really did speak their mind the workplace, especially if they were under pressure.   Just as Andrew Bayly and every other cabinet minister is under pressure. Because, with our three-year election cycle, this is the year of delivery for any government.   The second year of your three-year term, time for some results. And Bayly said as much yesterday, talking about his eagerness for progress and change in his portfolio areas.   And I know as much as anyone that working with people can be frustrating at times. That’s because we’re all different.   But that is never an excuse for being a bully. For losing your rag. But especially it is never an excuse for grabbing someone’s arm during an “animated discussion”.   Remembering too that, in recent years, Parliament has been exposed for bullying behaviour.   Which is what Andrew Bayly was doing when he grabbed that staff member’s arm last week. And I don't feel sorry for him at all.     Mon, 24 Feb 2025 23:35:33 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-spend-up-large-on-defence-we-have-no-choice/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-spend-up-large-on-defence-we-have-no-choice/ Spend up large. That’s my message to the Government. Go large, spend up big and drag our military into the 21st century. That’s not me having a go at the military, by the way. Anyone reading this at Burnham Camp, for example, might feel like I’m having a go at them. But I’m not. But, what I am saying, is that we need to be spending more on defence - and I’m not saying that just because of what’s going on out in the Tasman, with those three warships from China. A situation that went next level on Friday and over the weekend, with the live firing exercises. I say next level - but we also need to remember that China isn't breaking any laws. It’s fully entitled to have those ships there because they’re in international waters. My view last week was that we needed to calm the farm about the ships being out there. It wasn’t time for us to start banging on the table and getting on the blower to Beijing and giving China’s president what-for. And I’m not saying this just because of what’s been happening over the weekend - but I agree with Defence Minister Judith Collins when she says we have no choice but to to invest heavily in our defence forces. And she says it won’t just  be a one-off investment, either.  Over  time, it will be billions of dollars. As she pointed out on 九一星空无限talk ZB today, successive government over the last 30 years have underinvested in the military.  And Judith Collins says defence personnel are up for it. But are you up for it? Because it’s very easy to say ‘oh yeah, buy more planes, buy more ships etc", but when you ask people where the money's going to come from, they don’t have an easy answer to that question. Reason being: there isn’t an easy answer. What do you spend less on So more money can go into the army, navy and air force? Finance minister Nicola Willis will give us a bit of an answer to that when she delivers this year’s Budget in a few months.  But, right now, the bigger question is whether we support the idea of the government pouring a truckload more money into our military. I do. There will be people who don’t. But, according to one defence expert, what happened on Friday and over the weekend might actually it an easier sell for the Government. This is Professor David Capie from the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University. He’s saying that the live firing exercises forcing commercial airlines to divert to avoid the area makes the situation much more significant than it was last week. And he’s going as far as saying that the warships are “a gift from Beijing” to our government, to help it convince us of the need to spend more on defence. I’m convinced already. But what about you? Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:06:08 Z