/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/rss ¾ÅÒ»ÐÇ¿ÕÎÞÏÞ Tune into Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am to midday weekdays. Keep up with the latest news and developments from New Zealand and the world on Sun, 28 Dec 2025 05:32:33 Z en /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-compulsory-kiwisaver-is-a-no-brainer/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-compulsory-kiwisaver-is-a-no-brainer/ Winston Peters’ idea of making KiwiSaver compulsory is a no-brainer. It’s not a new idea. But it’s a great idea. It’s also something the NZ First leader has been against before now. But what good is a mind if you can’t change it? But I’m not totally on board with all aspects of his policy, which he says will be part of NZ First’s offering in next year’s election campaign. I’m open to the contributions increasing. Starting at 8 percent of our pay and, eventually, reaching 10 percent. Which is going way further than the current coalition government, which is increasing minimum contributions from 3 percent to 4 percent. But Winston, can you please drop this idea of giving us tax cuts so that we can afford to put more into our KiwiSaver? I know why you’re doing it. Or why you’re saying it. Because the first thing people are going to ask when you tell them that as much as 10 percent of their pay is going to disappear and go straight into their KiwiSaver, is how they’re supposed to be able to afford it. Instead of talking about tax cuts, we need to be told to work out how we’re going to do it. Because, until politicians have the guts to say that sort of thing, the retirement savings black hole is only going to get bigger.  We’ve seen already how pointless tax cuts are. We get a few extra bucks in our pocket and the Government gets a whole lot less in its pocket. Yet somehow, it’s still expected to pay out things like the NZ Super pension to anyone and everyone once they turn 65. We can’t do that with the Government getting less revenue through tax. The only way we could, would be to do something that I’ve been advocating for a while now - means testing people for the pension. But we’re not going to get Winston Peters pushing for that, are we? LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 08 Sept 2025 01:20:13 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-ocr-is-just-a-piece-in-the-economic-puzzle/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-ocr-is-just-a-piece-in-the-economic-puzzle/ I think we need to calm the farm a bit over the Reserve Bank cutting the Official Cash Rate.  Sure, it’s going to mean a slight reduction in how much interest we pay for our mortgages and business loans - and there’s talk of more reductions to come.   Which is all good news. But are we really out of the woods yet? I don’t think we are.  But if you listened or saw some of the reports yesterday and last night and this morning, there was ridiculous talk about the nation collectively heaving a sigh of relief. Which is nonsense.  One report I heard was a bit more accurate, when it said the cash rate has become something of a national obsession.  I saw a guy on TV last night - he was a first home-buyer - and he was saying how great the OCR cut was because it meant he’d be able to pay his mortgage off years earlier. Which just didn't make sense at all. Because, when he gets his mortgage, he’ll know how much things change over 25, 30 years.    The point I’m making, is that the Official Cash Rate - when it comes down to it - is just one factor when we’re talking about something like the cost of living.   Which is why I think we need to calm the farm. Because it isn’t necessarily the light at the end of the tunnel that people are banging on about, because there are so many other factors that determine whether you and I feel as if we have a bit more money in our pockets.  I was talking to someone about this earlier and they said ‘oh hold on a minute….it wasn’t that long ago that you were saying that as soon as the cash rate starts coming down, you’ll see that as a sign that things are on the improve and you’ll feel more positive about things.’  Now, first of all, I couldn’t actually remember saying that. But let’s assume I did - because I don’t have the greatest memory.  So let’s say that that was my view of the world a month or two ago, it isn’t now. Because so much has changed.  Just like the Reserve Bank Governor himself is saying to the people criticising him for saying there’d be no cuts to the cash rate until the second half of next year, and then going and announcing a cut yesterday.  Things change. And if it was my view a few months back - as someone reminded me earlier this morning - that an interest rate cut would be the light at the end of the tunnel; well, that was then and this is now.  A few months ago, we didn’t have manufacturing plants closing down because they couldn’t afford the power; we didn’t have the country being so short of power that the Government was talking about importing gas; and we still have business owners saying they’re hanging on just to “survive ‘til 2025”.  Businesses are going under at a faster rate than they have in years and $400 power bills aren’t uncommon for your average home.    I’m not wanting to be the prophet of doom or anything. I’m just pointing out a few of the things that aren’t just going to disappear because the Official Cash Rate is lower than what it was this time yesterday.  Then there’s all the stuff happening around the world. Which we have no influence over. The positive side is that inflation caused by the prices we pay for stuff we bring into the country is down.   But if you can predict where that might go by the end of this year, then you know more than I do. The US economy is slowing down. But there’s also China and the Middle East to be weary of.  Which is why - when I think about all that stuff - I say that let’s just pause, take a breath, and see the cut in the Official Cash rate for what it is. A piece in the puzzle. And that’s all.  LISTEN ABOVE Thu, 15 Aug 2024 01:46:46 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-history-never-repeats-except-for-boot-camps/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-history-never-repeats-except-for-boot-camps/ Even though it’s just been a few days since the Abuse in Care Inquiry report was released, the Government needs to be a bit quicker on the uptake and should be pulling the plug on its boot camp trial.  It won’t do that, though. In fact, any government would be the same. Because, if there’s one thing politicians at all ends of the political spectrum are terrified of, it’s being accused of flip-flopping.  Can you imagine the noise if Children's Minister Karen Chour had come on the radio this morning and said “look, after reading through that report we got the other week, we think now isn’t the time to be sending kids to boot camps.”  This is the same minister who said last week that she couldn’t guarantee kids won’t be abused while they’re at boot camp.  Which she had to say, didn’t she? It was the only thing she could say. Because how could she possibly say anything different?  Back to this morning, though. And, instead of saying the Government didn’t want to repeat the same mistakes of the past, she was saying how her life was turned around when she was young by the influence of just one person, and she hopes the same thing will happen at boot camp.  But now is not the time to be getting into boot camps. Here’s why.   In the abuse inquiry report that came out last week, there are 138 recommendations for the Government to consider. But it’s recommendations 70-to-75 that I think are relevant to boot camps.  And they relate to doing away with institutional environments for young people. Minimising them and, eventually, eliminating them altogether.  It says the Government should prioritise closing facilities that “perpetuate the institutional environments and practices that led to historic abuse and neglect in care.”  Which is what a boot camp is, isn’t it? An institutional environment. Similar to the boys homes or borstals of old, where some of this shocking abuse happened.  The Prime Minister is saying “no, no,no, no, no. Our boot camps will be different.” He’s saying that, this  time around, the boot camps will have psychologists and social workers working with 10 young people who’ll be there.  They won’t be isolated from family. All that stuff. But why would you still go ahead with boot camps when this report is telling you not to?    There was an excellent editorial piece in the NZ Herald at the weekend which quoted the report saying: “Research demonstrates that ‘boot camps’ and other harsh ‘short, sharp, shock’ interventions for youth are ineffective at reducing repeat offending”. That’s in last week’s report.  The NZ Herald article also mentioned a study in 2018 by former chief science adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, which said “boot camps do not work and ‘scared straight’ programmes have been shown to increase crime”.  But the Government isn’t listening. Because it’s got a coalition agreement to maintain.   So there’s no way it’s going to tell everyone up at boot camp that it’s had a change of heart. But it should.  Mon, 29 Jul 2024 01:07:33 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-if-we-were-really-tough-on-crime-wed-do-this/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-if-we-were-really-tough-on-crime-wed-do-this/ Law and Order is going to be one of the Government’s top priorities over the next three months - as part of its latest action plan which, like the last one, is a bit of an announcement of an announcement.  Two of its action points, though, is to launch a military-style academy pilot for serious and persistent young offenders (14-to-17 years olds we’re talking about here); and introduce legislation to toughen sentencing rules to ensure what it calls “real consequences for crime”.  Which is all very well. But I reckon the Government has left-out something that, I’m picking, is a problem for a truckload of people when it comes to crime. And it’s probably left it out because it’s in the too hard basket.  This particular thing has been in the too hard basket for years and looks like it’s going to stay there.   I’ve got a true story about something which happened in Christchurch just last week, which shows how much of an issue this particular thing is. Especially, when it comes to dealing with some of our youngest troublemakers.   But first: the law and order announcement from the Government yesterday came at the same time as new statistics show that ram raids were down 83% in the 12 months to August last year; and that 74% of children and young people put through fast-track youth offending programmes haven’t been referred back. Which sounds like success to me.   But, like most things, there’s a fly in the ointment. These stats relate to offenders 14 and older. Not the likes of the young creeps who turned-up at a person’s house in Christchurch one day last week and started causing a bit of a disturbance.  They were throwing rocks at the house. Which isn’t on, of course, and so this person’s partner went outside and chased them off.  That night, though, these kids came back —with a few more in tow— and this person I talked to said not only did they come back, and not only were there more of them, but one of them had a knife that looked to be longer than 30 centimetres.  So they called the Police. And when the cops turned up, these kids didn’t even try to run away and the one with the knife started yelling “we’re only 13, we’re only 13”. Because they know the cops can’t do anything with anyone younger than 14.   And, apparently, some of these ratbags were even younger than 13.   So, this person and their family were terrorised. Left with a bill for repair to their house and a car window that there’ll be no reparation for. All because these kids are under-14 and know full-well that, because of that, they can pretty much do what they want and get away with it.  The only crimes someone younger than 14 can be charged with are murder and manslaughter. Thankfully, we’re not talking about something as bad as that here. But I reckon if the Government is as tough on crime as it says it is then it would be taking this issue out of the too-hard basket and doing something about it.  Because, as this person who was terrorised by these kids last week said, they even went to the central police station the next day to double-check that the officers who had turned-up were right. That they couldn’t do anything about these little monsters.  And they were told ‘yep, that’s the law’. Even if a group storms onto a property, terrorises the people there, and threatens serious violence —even if one of them is carrying a huge knife— it is illegal but, if they’re younger than 14, nothing can be done about it.  As you would expect, this person impacted by these out-of-control monsters in Christchurch last week thinks the law is nonsense, and these kids need to face serious consequences. And so do I.  Tue, 02 Jul 2024 01:10:33 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-countrys-falling-to-bits/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-countrys-falling-to-bits/ So I get unwell, turn my back on things for a week-or-two, and the country just falls to bits.  This time last week, the Prime Minister and his “A-listers” were stuck on the tarmac after yet another air force breakdown.  Then a few jokers got the toolkit out up north, loosened a few things on a power pylon up there, and then the thing came crashing down. Black-outs. Simeon Brown trotting out his serious face.   These things surely don’t happen in threes, do they? If you’re in New Zealand - yes, they do.  And if Simeon had put-away the serious face on Friday night, he had it out again on Saturday morning and right through the weekend - saying he wasn’t happy with KiwiRail and how they’re looking after their “assets”, after the steering on the Aratere packed a sad and it ran aground.   Assets? Remember this is the outfit that’s been told since the coalition government came into power late last year that it needs to be more “Toyota Corolla” and less “Lamborghini”.  I wonder how Nicola Willis is feeling about the old Toyota Corolla line today?   When the Finance Minister pulled the plug on the big upgrade of the inter-island ferries because she reckoned Labour had gone ga-ga and was just writing-out blank cheques for KiwiRail, she said: “The Ferrari is not the only car in the garage, I think it’s time to see if there’s a Toyota Corolla”.  And, naturally, there is no shortage of people lining-up to say our infrastructure isn’t even Toyota Corolla. Because the thing about the Toyota Corolla is that they keep going, don’t they? Our national infrastructure doesn’t. And I’m more than happy to jump on the bandwagon and say, yep, it’s an absolute embarrassment.   But first, here’s what Infrastructure New Zealand’s policy director Michelle McCormick had to say when she was on with Mike earlier. She said we’re dreaming if we think it’s just the ferries that are the problem.  And Michelle McCormick reckons we are lucky people weren't injured or worse with the ferry grounding. And I think she's spot on. You don’t need to be an infrastructure expert to know that.  And I thought she made a very good point, when she said that it’s not just about being miserly when it comes to spending on repairs. We’ve also been miserly when it comes to training people to do the repairs.  Then we had Associate Finance Minister David Seymour dancing on the head of a pin when he was on with Mike. But, eventually, he admitted the air force plane breakdown was internationally embarrassing.  Which of course, it is.  And, maybe if the ferry thing hadn’t happened over the weekend, we’d have more people making a noise about that power pylon falling over because that just doesn’t happen on its own, does it?  So surely, that meets the threshold of being something of a national embarrassment, as well.  And I’d be willing to put money on the power pylon issue being another outcome of this oily rag mentality that seems to have taken over when it comes to building and maintaining key infrastructure in New Zealand.  Because what other excuse do we have? It’s all just been a run of terrible bad luck? Yeah right. Dream on.  We are a bunch of scrooges when it comes to spending money on infrastructure. I don’t think we used to be. But we certainly are now.  Scrooges, Skinflints. Whatever label you want to use, that’s what New Zealand has become. And we are paying the price for it.  And the only solution is to start spending serious money where it is seriously needed. Because, whether we like it or not, we need to accept that New Zealand has become an infrastructure basket case.  LISTEN ABOVE.  Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:28:53 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-cllr-climate-change-levy-is-a-no-brainer/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-cllr-climate-change-levy-is-a-no-brainer/ If you care about the future generations as much as you say you do - or think you do - then you’ll have no problem with Christchurch city councillor Sara Templeton pushing for the council to charge a new levy to help with the cost of adapting to climate change.  Her argument is simple. How can we say it’s fair to expect future generations to not only live with the consequences of climate change, but to pay for it, as well? To carry the financial burden?  And she is spot on. It’s not fair.  But I tell you what. While I think she’s right, and that this is the sort of thing we should be doing, I bet we won’t.  Because there’ll be no shortage of people banging-on about Sara Templeton and her cycleways, Sara Templeton being anti-car and Sara Templeton ramming climate change down our throats. There’ll be no shortage of all that noise.  And many of Sara’s fellow councillors will hear all that and they’ll get spooked - as politicians do - and they’ll keep kicking the climate change can down the road.  If there’s anything we should learn here in Canterbury from the water disaster in Wellington, it’s that councils nationwide need to get their heads out of the sand and, if stuff must be done, they need to get on with it. And ratepayers need to front up with the money.  And you might say ‘oh all that stuff in Wellington is about maintenance of the pipes’. Yes, correct. But the reason they’re in the situation they’re in up there is that councillors up-and-down the country over the years have only been concerned about the here and now. Or the here, now and the next election.  And I bet that’s what will happen in Christchurch with this idea that ratepayers pay a special climate change levy, over and above their rates.  But I think it’s a no-brainer. We have to do it.  Sara Templeton is pushing to have this new levy included in the Council’s long-term plan, which it’s working on now.  She’s being very realistic, and she isn’t saying they should be charging it on top of the 15 percent rates increase that’s on the cards for the next year. She’s saying that, once rates increases are back into single figures, that’s when this new levy would come into effect.  It cracks me up how we often hear people banging-on about the debt being left behind for future generations by central governments. But this so-called concern about future generations is all talk, if we aren't prepared to have some skin in the game.  And that’s what Sara Templeton is calling for. She wants us to put our money where our mouths are and to stop expecting someone else to pay for the gazilions that are going to have to be spent to adapt to climate change.  If you’re like me and you think that the climate emergency the city council declared back in 2019 was just a piece of PR. Then how can you possibly disagree with what Sara Templeton is pushing for?  As she says, the council is dreaming if it thinks it’s going to halve emissions by 2030 - a goal it set itself not long after it declared the climate emergency.  And let’s not forget sea level rise. Pretty much every time you mention this, you get the counter-claims that sea-level rise has nothing to do with global warming.  Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is - sometime pretty soon, we are going to have to start moving people away from coastal areas. It’s going to happen here in Canterbury. Maybe sooner than we expect. And do you think the insurance companies are going to turn up to that party? Of course they’re not.  Do you expect the young kids and teenagers of today are going to be delighted to pay for that  problem, which they didn’t create? Of course they’re not.  And not only that. They shouldn’t be expected to pay for it all, either.  As Sara Templeton is saying, this new levy wouldn’t be like a lotto win for the council. It wouldn’t cover all the costs that are going to come from adapting to climate change. But it would help. And that’s why I think it’s a no-brainer.  And yes - it’s quite possible that you and I might not see any benefits from this new levy in our lifetimes. Because this is a long game we’re playing here.   But is that reason enough not to do our bit? Of course it isn’t.  Sun, 04 Feb 2024 23:44:15 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/audio/politics-friday-mps-gerry-brownlee-and-dan-rosewarne-on-tax-policies-nz-first-politician-payrises-and-sir-lockwood-smith/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/audio/politics-friday-mps-gerry-brownlee-and-dan-rosewarne-on-tax-policies-nz-first-politician-payrises-and-sir-lockwood-smith/ John MacDonald was joined by Gerry Brownlee and Dan Rosewarne for Politics Friday.  They discussed tax policies released recently by both parties, working with New Zealand First and the upcoming pay rise for politicians. And do they agree with Sir Lockwood Smith's view that MMP has ruined Parliament?  LISTEN ABOVE   Thu, 31 Aug 2023 23:50:27 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-why-should-the-slackers-get-the-same-pay/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-why-should-the-slackers-get-the-same-pay/ Is it just me or do you see fishhooks in the Government’s Fair Pay Agreements legislation too?I mean it sounds great, doesn’t it? If you and I do the same job, we get the same minimum pay and conditions. Which is the Government’s way of reversing elements of the deregulation of the labour market that happened 30 years ago when National was in government and did away with collective worker rights and replaced them with the Employment Contracts Act. Which, over time, has meant more and more of us signing individual contracts with the outfits we work for and negotiating our own terms and conditions. Which is fine if you’re the type of person who has the wherewithal to do that. And by wherewithal, I pretty much mean the confidence to say to an employer that ‘I think I’m worth this much, and these are conditions I’m after while I’m working for you’. But, like anything in life, some people are better at some things than others, and the Employment Contracts Act probably hasn’t turned out to be the saviour for some New Zealand workers that the National government back in the day claimed it would be. As Grant Robertson put it last night: the reduction in wages that resulted from the Employment Contracts Act 30 years ago wasn’t an accident - it was intentional - and he went on to say (quote) “Today we turn that around”. And so the current Labour Government is saying today that it has delivered on its promise to do something to improve a lot of the people Workplace Relations Minister Michael Woods described in Parliament last night as being “the most vulnerable” - and he included in those the essential workers who kept things running during Covid. National and ACT oppose the Fair Pay Agreements big time. Because of the numbers in the House, they knew they couldn’t stop the legislation - but both parties say if they are in Government after next year’s election, they’ll be getting rid of Fair Pay Agreements. One of National’s main beefs is that employers will be forced to negotiate an industry-wide agreement if 10 per cent of people working in a particular sector want to start bargaining or negotiations. So, let’s say you work at Pak‘nSave - if 10 per cent of all the people who work in supermarkets around the country get together and decide they want to negotiate a pay agreement for the lot of you - then your supermarket and all the other supermarkets will have to come to the table and thrash out a deal. The Government is saying that this would ensure fairness. The National Party is saying it would mean mandatory union deals and would make businesses less competitive. The Council of Trade Unions - or CTU - says agreements like this will make it easier for employers to hire and keep staff.Just quietly, it’ll probably be good for business for the unions too if they’re going to suddenly be involved in negotiating agreements that, back in the day, were called “awards”. That was a term I remember from watching the news when I was a kid. There always seemed to be one of those guys from the wharfies unions on the TV banging on about awards. In 2022, we call them Fair Pay Agreements. Back then, they were awards. But, essentially, they’re the same thing. So you can understand why the likes of Business New Zealand and employers aren’t fussed about this at all. And I can understand that - even though I know there will undoubtedly be employers out there who have been quite comfortable screwing people down when it comes to their individual employment agreements. And, for most businesses, this will be complex and for some, it will mean reduced profitability.But for me - I really question the so-called “fairness” of these Fair Pay Agreements when what they will do, is ensure everyone gets paid the same for doing the same job, irrespective of how much effort they put into it. Would you really want to do a genuine hard day’s work, and get paid the same as the slacker you work with who does the absolute bare minimum and always seems to have something wrong with them and “can’t come in today’? I certainly wouldn’t. And this is where I see this whole thing going pear-shaped. If you’ve worked anywhere, you’ll know the sort of person I’m talking about. The one who always seems to be last in, in the morning, and first out the door at the end of the day. The one who says they’d love to help you out, but they’re “just too snowed under, mate”. Under the pump. If you work in retail, maybe you bend over backwards for customers - but this other person you work with is rude and never goes the extra mile. Yes, you could negotiate a pay rise or be rewarded for going above and beyond, but that’s up to your employer. And if your employer is already having to pay everyone extra as a minimum, your employer may not be so keen. Well, under these new Fair Pay Agreements, you may as well just do what the other turkey does because they’ll be getting paid the same as you. Same base pay, same base conditions. And that doesn’t sit well with me, at all. This article has been edited. An earlier version didn’t clearly state that Fair Pay Agreements set a minimum standard for pay and conditions and allow for performance-based rises. Thu, 27 Oct 2022 01:50:23 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-give-zac-guildford-his-first-division-second-chance/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-give-zac-guildford-his-first-division-second-chance/ There’s a bit of you-know-what going down at the Woodend Rugby Club, over whether or not former All Black Zac Guildford should be taken on as a coach. Or “troubled” former All Black Zac Guildford - as pretty much every news article about the guy describes him. Which I think is putting it mildly. Someone who has consistently struggled with alcohol and gambling addictions; who is currently on home detention after stealing $40k from his grandfather and $60k from a friend; and who has admitted using methamphetamine and cocaine, they’re more than just troubled aren’t they. He also assaulted a woman in 2019 and, remember too, there was also the incident in Rarotonga back in 2011 when he got boozed-up, ran into a bar naked and assaulted a couple of people. And he’s been so addicted to gambling, he even sold his 2011 Rugby World Cup medal to get a few thousand bucks. How sad must that transaction have been? And it seems, doesn’t it, that every time Zac Guildford has screwed-up there’s been someone willing to give him a second chance. But, to be fair, he seems to blow it every time. And that’s why, as some people involved with Woodend Rugby are concerned, Zac Guildford is not only troubled - he is trouble full-stop - and they don’t want the club taking him on as a coach. Guildford himself has confirmed to us today that he’s been in talks with the club about coaching the club’s Division 1 team, but nothing’s been confirmed yet. A news report out today saying two club committee members have quit over it and some sponsors aren’t happy either. According to the report I’ve seen, his potential appointment was announced at the club prizegiving at the weekend. And so the people who aren’t happy about it are saying they’re not happy because it’s all been done without the club going through the proper process. Apparently, no vote has been taken at committee level - and so one of the committee members who has reportedly quit is saying they’ve had a gutsful of the club not following the proper procedures. But I think that’s just code for saying they don’t want Guildford. The word is too that, even though there’s been no vote, the majority of committee members don’t want him coaching either. So you can imagine what it must’ve been like at the weekend when everyone turned up at the prizegiving and the “big announcement” was made. Was that a pin dropping that I just heard? Now I’m no athlete, but one thing I’ve learned, especially as all our kids have been involved in some pretty intense sporting activities, what I’ve learned from that is at whatever level - you need a coach you can rely on. Someone you know is going to turn up at training, who’s going to turn up on match day or race day almost before everybody else. And I’ve got to say that, based on what I’ve seen and heard about Zac Guildford, I think I would really struggle being confident that he would turn up at training, would turn up on game day on time, wouldn’t go AWOL - and that’s just the coaching stuff. What about trusting that he wouldn’t turn up at some club event off his nut or help himself to money at the clubrooms or defraud the club in some other way? Because, as we know, these are all things he’s shown he’s capable of. BUT, let’s think about it this way too. Unlike someone else who’s been in the news this week, Zac Guildford doesn’t hide his shortcomings. He’s done some pretty crappy things - I’m not sure how much lower you could get than stealing $40,000 from your grandfather. But he’s never pretended to be a pillar of society, when he isn’t. Unlike our friend from the Bay of Plenty who we’ve been talking about this week. And yes, he’s been given plenty of chances to turn his life around. But let’s not forget that this is someone who grew up with gambling and drinking all around him. When he was in court earlier this year for stealing the money from his grandfather and a friend, a member of his family spoke about Trackside TV being on 24/7 and addictions being normalised. Here’s a quote from one of Zac’s uncles: “From a very young age, the law for us was to gamble, watch the horses, and drink alcohol as a family.” I’m not saying that excuses him from any of the appalling things he’s done. But it provides a bit of context. And it’s why I think the people at the Woodend Rugby Club who aren’t happy about Guildford being signed on as coach of the Division 1 team, need to pull their heads in and think about the opportunity they have. I’m not talking about the opportunity for Zac himself. I’m talking about the opportunity the club has to teach the kids involved in the club, especially, that just because someone stuffs things up - it doesn't mean they shouldn’t be given another chance. It could go pear-shaped. Of course it could. But it could also be something that Woodend Rugby Club could be extremely proud of. And it could be a lesson for us all, that even someone like Zac Guildford - who has let himself and other people down time-and-time again - even someone like him, can eventually turn their life around. Being part of something like that, would surely beat winning any trophy or club title. Surely. Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:42:29 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-at-last-a-cap-on-water-bottling-madness/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-at-last-a-cap-on-water-bottling-madness/ How nuts was it that two water bottling companies were able to access some old industrial land north of Christchurch, and use the age-old water consents that went with the properties to take billions of litres of aquifer water, stick it in plastic bottles and ship it overseas for people to drink? And not pay a single cent for the privilege. 8.8 billion litres a year - or 24 million litres a day. It was absolute nuts. And yesterday, the Court of Appeal said it was nuts too. And it didn’t stop there. It said Environment Canterbury regional council (ECAN) cocked-up big time by allowing it to happen back in 2017. “Cocked up big time” wasn’t exactly the terminology the Court of Appeal used. I don’t think it used the word “nuts” either. But that was the gist of it. The whole thing was nuts. And ECAN cocked up. And I couldn’t agree more. It’s exactly what the thousands of people who marched through the streets of Christchurch back in 2019 thought. And it’s exactly what the Aotearoa Water Action group - which started the whole legal challenge - thought too. Quite rightly, it said that ECAN had acted unlawfully when it cobbled together existing water consents originally issued for meat processing and wool scouring operations on the two sites, so that the water bottlers could help themselves to water from Christchurch’s aquifers. They didn’t even publicly notify it. So the legal challenge started in the High Court but didn’t get anywhere so the Aotearoa Water Action group went to the Court of Appeal which announced yesterday that it thought what ECAN did was definitely unlawful, and it should have required the companies to apply for a fresh consent because water bottling was not what the original consents were intended for. The tricky thing is, that would have gone nowhere because all the aquifer water that ECAN is responsible for is fully allocated - so it effectively rorted its own system. Absolutely shameful. So take that ECAN. And take that Cloud Ocean Water and Rapaki Natural Resources, the two companies involved. Who may all yet appeal the ruling and they’re being pretty tight-lipped on that front at the moment, which isn’t surprising given the decision only came out yesterday. But, for now anyway, let’s give the thumbs up to the Court of Appeal and celebrate the fact that common sense seems to be prevailing. And your version of common sense is probably different from the next person’s. You might think the Court of Appeal’s decision is common sense because you’re opposed to anyone making money out of a natural resource like water. You might think it’s common sense because we were being ripped off by the bottlers who weren’t paying anything for the water. Maybe you were brassed off with ECAN for rorting its own system and allowing the bottling to go-ahead. Or maybe you were just anti the whole thing because it was foreigners making the money out of it. Whatever your reason for opposing what was going on, it should never have happened. I’ve already seen comments today asking why people were so outraged and opposed to the Chinese water bottlers taking aquifer water and selling it, but weren’t so upset about farmers all around Canterbury taking truckloads of water and spraying it on their paddocks. I’ve heard it said that the amount of water used to irrigate just four dairy farms in Canterbury over 12 months, is about the same amount used by the whole of Christchurch city every year.  So it’s probably quite fair to ask why people were so anti-water bottling, but not so concerned about irrigation. Because farmers don’t pay anything for the water, do they? They invest a whole lot of money into the irrigation schemes and the equipment needed to get the water onto the paddocks - but, just like the water bottlers, they don’t pay a cent for the water. So is it time to put a price on water? If you want to bottle water - you’ve got to pay for it. If you want to irrigate your farm - you’ve got to pay for it. I wouldn’t be in favour of charging farmers for water. For the simple reason that they already invest heavily to get the water where it’s needed. And why would you burden farmers with more costs when - unlike the Chinese water bottlers - the money our farmers make generally stays here in New Zealand. And that’s why I’m delighted with the Court of Appeal’s decision. I wouldn't care whether the bottlers were from China, Timbuktu …anywhere. The fact that they paid nothing and New Zealand saw none of the profits, was ridiculous, and ECAN should be ashamed for allowing it to happen. Thu, 21 Jul 2022 01:06:52 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/audio/paul-ego-comedian-and-one-half-of-the-paul-paul-comedy-night-coming-to-a-theatre-near-you/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/audio/paul-ego-comedian-and-one-half-of-the-paul-paul-comedy-night-coming-to-a-theatre-near-you/ The Paul Paul Comedy Night is a show where both Pauls are the feature act. Each night they’ll draw straws or sausages or whatever else is close by, to decide who goes first and who goes second. Regardless of the order, rest assured that Paul will definitely be the best act of the night. The Paul Paul Comedy Night featuring Paul Ego and Paul Douglas is coming to a venue either near you, or near someone you know. Paul Ego joined John MacDonald to give an insight into what audience members can expect. LISTEN ABOVE Thu, 21 Jul 2022 01:01:14 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-police-crackdown-more-likely-to-be-a-letdown/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-police-crackdown-more-likely-to-be-a-letdown/ When Chris Hipkins took over as Police Minister from Poto Williams a month ago, I thought to myself ‘mmmm, he knows how to get stuff done but I don’t know if he’s the rottweiler some people think we need a Police Minister to be’. Which was the problem with Poto wasn’t it? She was seen as a pushover - which didn’t do much either for what some people thought of the Police Commissioner. And when people looked at the two together they came away with the impression that the Government is soft on crime. So yesterday, as far Chris Hipkins’ mild-mannered standards go, he well and truly came out firing with what’s been described in the media as a Government crack-down on gangs. I know its Chris Hipkins but when I saw him on the news last night, I was struck by how even the boy-next-door was such a contrast to his predecessor who, let’s face it, was a disaster as Police Minister. But old Heatgun Hipkins, if we had Crusher Collins I think the Government’s going to need a similar sort of nickname for Hipkins, old Heatgun was talking tough yesterday. “We want to hit gangs where it hurts,” was what he said. That was echoed by Justice Minister Kiri Allan who was riding shotgun at the announcement yesterday. She said: “Hitting them where it hurts. We’re going after guns, vehicles and cash.” Which took me right back to the old Hill Street Blues TV cop show. Remember that one? And what would the cop in charge say every morning? “Let’s be careful out there”. That’s what Heatgun Hipkins was like yesterday. So I think we can agree that the Government has certainly upped the tough talking, at least, and is putting a few more tools in the police and justice toolkits to try and do something to tackle what has been an increase in gang membership and an increase in gang tensions. The things they’re talking about are: • New warrant and search powers to find and seize weapons from gang members involved in gang conflict • Expanding the range of offences where police can seize and impound cars, motorbikes and other vehicles • Up to five years prison for a new offence of discharging a gun with intent to intimidate • Seizing cash worth more than $10,000 if it looks like it might have come from some form of criminal activity • Adding watches, jewellery, precious metals and stones; motor vehicles and boats to the list of high value goods that can’t be sold for cash • And doing more to sort out youth crime and reduce offending National, of course, is saying they don’t go far enough and the Greens are saying it’s just a knee-jerk reaction to try and get Labour up in the polls. This is no revelation. Of course what the Government announced yesterday is designed to get more brownie points from voters. Just like all the banging on National’s been doing about getting tough on gangs, politicians don’t do all this for us, they do it for themselves. Nevertheless, it seems life is going to get a bit more difficult for the gangs. And I can’t imagine anyone, other than the gangs themselves, thinking that’s a bad thing. But is it going to be enough to convince people that the Government isn’t soft on crime? More importantly, is it going to stop people wanting to join gangs? I don’t think it is. Is what the Government announced yesterday going to see more gang members in court and punished for their illegal activity? I don’t think it is because you can have all the rules and laws you want, but if the Police aren’t resourced adequately to enforce the laws then they’re useless, aren’t they? Which is why people like gang expert Jarrod Gilbert are saying that it’s a good thing the Government hasn’t gone further and banned gang patches. Which is one of the things National’s been demanding. It might sound good but do you really think the Police would have the time and resources to enforce it? Of course not. And, for me, that’s the nub of this whole thing. Politicians have forever been making laws that can’t be enforced. And if the Government was really serious about “hitting the gangs where it hurts” then it would have announced at the same time that it was also investing heavily in building up our police force. So, my take on it is that the Government is doing a lot of huffing and puffing but I think this so-called “crackdown” is more likely to be a let-down. Thu, 14 Jul 2022 01:22:20 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-trevor-mallard-is-anything-but-a-diplomat/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-trevor-mallard-is-anything-but-a-diplomat/ We probably all know - or, at least, know of - someone who has been an absolute shocker at their job, but somehow they’ve gone on to get themselves an even better job somewhere else. They might’ve been a manager who was a real bully or played favourites or was a complete control freak; or they might’ve been a fellow worker who had no idea what they were doing, complained all the time, and were a general pain in the backside. They might’ve even driven people out of the place with their behaviour. Either way, not the sort of person you would imagine moving on to a better job. But, somehow, they do and you’re left scratching your head and asking yourself ‘how the hell did that happen?’. And that’s how I’m feeling about Trevor Mallard. As announced yesterday, he is retiring from Parliament and his current role as Speaker of the House, to become New Zealand’s Ambassador in Ireland. In fact, I’m not just scratching my head. I think it’s outrageous that the Prime Minister has given him such a cushy role, when we all know he is a complete plonker. Which is being generous really. Because he’s just awful. Well, that’s my honest opinion - anyway. And it wasn’t that long ago that I was saying that I thought he’d lost the plot. I wasn’t on my own thinking that. And I don’t feel any differently today. Who can forget the ridiculous way he behaved during the big protest at Parliament earlier this year. Turning the sprinklers on the protesters - even though it was pouring with rain anyway - and blasting the Barry Manilow songs over the loud speakers. An absolute embarrassment. It was cringing. Behaving that way, as the most senior person not just in Parliament but at Parliament. In charge of pretty much everything, and there he was cranking up the sprinklers and blasting the music. Which was bad enough on its own but let’s not forget either the time he accused someone working at Parliament of rape - and then had to backtrack and reach a legal settlement over it all. But still couldn’t keep his mouth shut and went on to use parliamentary privilege to say that the person had committed a sexual assault. Judith Collins once said he was the biggest bully she had ever seen in Parliament. And I can’t argue with that. I saw him on TV the other week when he appeared before a select committee at Parliament and he was grilled about his handling of the anti-mandate protest. From what I saw, I thought he was menacing towards the MPs asking the tough questions. And I thought he was just a bully-boy the way he barged through journalists when he left the meeting room. Just an awful, awful person - in my honest opinion. And others seem to think the same way. It was only last week that a poll done for TVNZ found that only 17 percent of people approved of the way he’s been performing as Speaker. But, despite the way he’s behaved, despite what the people who pay his salary think of his performance (that us taxpayers I’m talking about), and despite the things he’s done and the misery he’s caused, Trevor Mallard is moving on to be our diplomat in Ireland. I looked up a definition of diplomat and this is what I found. A diplomat is “a person who can deal with others in a sensitive and tactful way”. Sensitive. Tactful. Trevor Mallard. I don’t think so. Yet, the Prime Minister thinks he’s the man for the job in Ireland and so he’s off. If there’s a silver lining in all of this, it’s the fact that we won’t have to put up with him any longer. And let’s hope his successor is nowhere near the national embarrassment Mallard has been. But it is galling, isn’t it, that someone like him can be rewarded in this way. In fact, it’s not just galling - it is outrageous. Tue, 14 Jun 2022 01:10:01 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/audio/rachael-dixon-canterbury-university-researcher-says-new-sexuality-curriculum-will-allow-conversations-about-healthy-relationships-from-a-young-age/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/audio/rachael-dixon-canterbury-university-researcher-says-new-sexuality-curriculum-will-allow-conversations-about-healthy-relationships-from-a-young-age/ A school-based health education researcher says new sexuality curriculum will allow conversations about healthy relationships from a young age. The Government has this year provided resources for teaching new relationships and sexuality education - which includes consent, digital safety and healthy relationships. It's split into a volume each for years 1-to-8 - and for years 9-to-13. Canterbury University's Rachael Dixon told Canterbury Morning's John MacDonald for five year olds, it includes being able to name body parts. She says it's really important to know the words so that people can recognise if someone is doing something to their bodies that isn't okay. LISTEN ABOVE Tue, 31 May 2022 00:58:43 Z