Advertise on podcast: Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

NZ First is on the up, according to the latest 1News Verian poll. The result out last night had Winston Peters’ party on 10 percent - its highest rating in that particular poll since August 2017. It comes just a few weeks after a Taxpayers’ Union poll ranked NZ First the third most popular party in Parliament. Ask NZ Herald chief political reporter Jamie Ensor and he’ll tell you more and more voters are liking the party because of its cautious approach on immigration and climate change policies. That it’s a party that is seen as anti-establishment and has, as he puts it, “a charismatic no-nonsense leader”. That bit about Winston Peters being anti-establishment is a reference to his flirtatious relationship with the conspiracy theory brigade. Which tends to be the Winston Peters we see here at home. When he’s running around community halls up and down the country barking into microphones. When he jumps on a plane, though, and heads overseas as the Foreign Affairs Minister, he’s a completely different guy, isn’t he? Nevertheless, whatever version we get on any given day, more people seem to be liking it. My theory is that NZ First is only on the rise because all the other options are so bad. I can’t believe that two-and-a-half years on from the last election, I’m still in the same boat and have no idea who I want to vote for. That’s how I felt at the last election and that’s how I’m feeling now. I’ve spoken to plenty of people recently who say they’re looking seriously at NZ First. People of all ages. What has surprised me most, is the number of young people who seem to like what the party is saying about immigration. These are people who aren’t just seeing NZ First as an option because they don’t think any of the other parties are offering anything. They’re actually liking what the party is saying. And that’s what we’re seeing in the polls. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Isn’t David Seymour the guy who got himself into government at the last election and then went and set up a new government department? But, despite the irony, I agree with him that we need fewer government departments and fewer Cabinet ministers. Previously, the ACT leader has described the public sector as "a big, complicated bureaucratic beast". There are the numbers to back that up. We have 82 cabinet portfolios, 28 ministers and 41 separate government departments and agencies. David Seymour thinks that’s crazy and says ACT will campaign in this year’s election on changing that. And, instead of having 41 government departments and agencies, he wants us to have no more than 30. As for cabinet ministers - at the moment there are 28, David Seymour thinks we need no more than 20. I remember Oliver Hartwich from the NZ Initiative think tank saying last year that we could get away with having as few as 15 cabinet ministers, instead of the 28 we have at the moment. But he thought that 20 was more realistic. As for government departments, they are monsters. They operate in silos. They compete with each other for funding. They don’t talk to each other. That’s why there’s so much duplication. For example, do we need a Ministry of Education and an Education Review Office? I don’t think so. Do we need a Ministry of Justice and a Department of Corrections? Possibly not. As for cabinet positions, do we need a mental health minister? Could that all be part of the health minister’s job? And don’t get me started on things like the Minister for the South Island or the Minister for Auckland that Labour brought in. So, I’m with David Seymour and I think we could do with fewer government departments and agencies. But it will never happen. Talking about having less government departments and less cabinet ministers is easy and politicians talk about it because they know it tends to go down well with people. But it will never happen. Because, whether people admit it or not, they still expect the government and its departments to fix everything. And, unless that changes, the government isn’t going to get any smaller. And its list of departments isn’t going to get any shorter. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National MP for Banks Peninsula Vanessa Weenick, and Labour List MP Tracey McLellan. They covered the latest national and local issues, including NZ First's announcement to campaign on a Māori electorate referendum, whether all events at One NZ Stadium should have a levy, electric e-trail bikes that are speeding around the city, and more. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christchurch City Councillor Yani Johanson thinks we should all pay a special levy when we buy tickets for all events at Christchurch’s new One New Zealand Stadium. And he won’t be getting any argument from me. Yani can’t believe the news today that a levy is only going to be charged on tickets for concerts by international artists. He says it is “inconceivable” the levy won’t be charged for all events, including rugby matches and everything else that happens there, because he reckons it’s only fair that all people who use the stadium help pay for its upkeep. No international acts have been announced yet but, apparently, there are going to be some announcements in the next few weeks. And when the tickets go on sale, the council’s events company - Venues Ōtautahi - which is going to be running the stadium, is going to add a $5 levy to the ticket price. The money from the levy is going to be used to pay for the extra toilets and extra food and drink facilities that are going to be needed when they have these big concerts. So it sounds as if we might be queuing up for portaloos even though it’s a new flash harry facility. The point Councillor Yani Johanson is making, is that anyone who wants to go to any event at the stadium should make the same contribution towards the running of the place. He says: “A lot of these people buy expensive tickets to these events and are subsidised by the ratepayers in Linwood, Bromley and Aranui. I don’t think that is fair.” But the head of Venues Ōtautahi, Caroline Harvie-Teare, says it wouldn’t be fair or right to charge a levy for all events. Her thinking is that if you or I are buying tickets to see the likes of Bruce Springsteen or Pink or the Rolling Stones, we’re not going to give two-hoots about a $5 levy on top of the ticket price. But she says it would be a different story for some of the smaller-scale, community-type events that are also going to be held at the stadium. She says a levy on those types of events could put some people off and so they would be less viable. But what I would say to that, is that the stadium is not a charity and if events can’t pay their way, then maybe they need to be held somewhere else. What’s more, do you really think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the All Blacks or the Crusaders? Of course not. Do you think a $5 levy would put people off buying tickets to see the rugby league world cup double-header in October? Or the Black Ferns when they play here? So, of course, this levy should be added to the ticket prices for every event. Yani Johanson is spot on. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you think there is anyone in New Zealand who believes the Government’s line that it’s a coincidence the findings of its inquiry into the Reserve Bank’s COVID-19 response will be released a few weeks before the election? As the NZ Herald’s political editor, Thomas Coughlan, puts it: the inquiry will ask the right questions at the wrong time. Because this has election campaigning written all over it.  The official line is that the review is being done to “identify any lessons New Zealand could learn to improve the response to future major events”.  But how credible is that, given the findings of the inquiry will be released just weeks before this year’s election? Not very, according to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who’s saying today: “If this is a genuinely independent review that provides some lessons learned, it could be useful. But doing it right in the middle of an election campaign suggests that’s not Nicola Willis’ primary motivation here.” And he’s spot on. Because it’s not. The Government’s primary motivation is to spend half a million dollars of taxpayer money on a report that is going to come out at the pointy end of the election campaign, which will do one of two things. It will either rip into the Reserve Bank in the way the Government hopes it will. So it can then say to voters, “do you really want the last lot who let the Reserve Bank get away with this trainwreck back in charge of the economy?”  Or, the report will be a bit soft -  not quite what the Government wants - but will still give it bragging rights about looking to learn from past mistakes. Unlike Labour, who it will accuse of not having the guts to front up to the COVID-19 Royal Commission of Inquiry. So it’s going to be a win-win - especially for National. I think this would have way more credibility if the Government had come out yesterday and said it was launching the inquiry but the findings wouldn’t be released until after the election.  For the benefit of whoever the government of the day is after the election. If it had done that, I would have had no problem with the timing. Instead, this inquiry - which, in itself, is fully justified - is at risk of looking like nothing more than taxpayers coughing-up for the National Party’s election campaign. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is there anything about the Government’s free trade deal with India that anyone likes? The prime minister and the trade minister love it. Winston Peters doesn’t. And it seems Labour leader Chris Hipkins is coming around to thinking that he doesn’t like it, either. He’s concerned about the prospect of an unlimited number of Indian students being allowed to come here and work and the impact that could have on the job market. Which the trade minister is poo-pooing. Because we don’t actually have any limits on the number of students who can come here from anywhere. Not just India. But I think we should. I know the trade minister will tell us until he’s blue in the face that this is a trade deal - not an immigration deal. But he’s pushing that one uphill with the likes of Winston Peters, who is picking up on the immigration side of it because there is no shortage of people who love to complain about foreigners “taking over”. Do you really think NZ First would be making as much of a noise if this was a deal with the UK or the US? I don’t think so.  So they’re just tapping into some good old-fashioned xenophobia. That said - since the government announced the deal just before Christmas - whenever I’ve been speaking with young people especially about it, I’ve been surprised how strongly some of them feel about students coming here from other countries.   And how many of them think there should be limits. Which I agree with, for several reasons. First of all, students don’t come here with any skills. They come here to get skilled. I know they spend money and it’s great for the tertiary sector because they pay higher fees being international students. But they don’t come here and fill the workforce skill shortages we’re dealing with.  Secondly, the more students from overseas, the higher the demand for accommodation. Which means student rents going skyward. What’s more, if we have no limits on the number of students coming here, then that increases the risk of students getting ripped off by employers. It also makes it tougher for domestic students to find the work they need to pay for their studies. But what do you think? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A lawyer believes the Christchurch couple who found $200,000 in their ceiling space should keep the cash that they found in their property. However, the High Court has decided that the couple are not owed a cent of the money, even though they handed it in with good faith. They uncovered the cash sealed in plastic bricks and concealed in insulation in 2021 and reported their discovery to police. Lawyer and former police officer Matthew Hague told John MacDonald that there's no question that the couple were innocent in their reporting. "They had zero involvement with anything untoward, they should be allowed to keep it" When asked if he thinks the couple will end up with the money, he said there is one thing going against them. "If you pay for something, that can be a factor for something to be returned, but they're not out of pocket." "In my view, they did nothing wrong" LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins has fallen into the trap that I could very easily find myself falling into if I didn’t think a little bit more carefully about this plan by the Government to set-up a new shipping terminal in Taranaki to import liquified natural gas. This is the gas that’s needed to generate power, alongside the other ways we generate power in this country - hydro, coal and wind. It’s going to cost somewhere north of $1 billion, and the Government reckons it will be up-and-running in one-to-two years’ time. I think it’s dreaming on the timeline front. I also think Chris Hipkins is dreaming when he says $1 billion would buy a lot of solar panels. Because even though Energy Minister Simon Watts banging-on about us paying less for our electricity - or more to the point, not paying a truckload more for electricity - this isn’t actually about you and me.  Unless you run a big manufacturing or processing plant - in particular one of these big plants or factories that have been struggling with power prices. This is about industrial electricity supplies. This talk about importing gas first surfaced a couple of years ago when factories were actually closing because of high power prices. The big power companies looked into it, and they wrote a report for the Government which essentially said that it wasn’t as straightforward as it sounded. They looked into the practicalities of importing gas and they said we could do it, but there are a few things to think about.   The main ones being the price tag and how long it would take to get it happening.  They said last year that it could be done cheaper than $1 billion - for around $200 million - but the gas would be 25 percent more expensive, because the cheaper option would use existing facilities. However, there wouldn’t be the same amount of storage and so we couldn’t buy as much in one hit and so we’d pay more for it. They also said it wouldn’t be an overnight fix. It would be about four years before we started to see the benefits. Another main point in this report was that we could spend the money and wait for it all to come online, but there could be years when we don’t even need the extra gas. But that’s a bit like pouring money into a fire alarm and sprinkler system and not using it. You know it’s there and it gives you security. That’s how I see this gas importation business. It’s a back-up. And so, what if it isn’t needed all the time? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I’ve done a few things in my time. But one thing I haven’t done is serve on a jury. For a long time, I put it down to me working in the media. But I was out of the media for a long time, as well. So I don’t know why I haven’t had the call up. But, apparently - according to defense lawyer John Munro - I might be somewhat unusual in my enthusiasm. He says people don’t have the same sense of civic duty as they used to and aren’t keen to do jury service. And, because of that, we need to be offering more carrots for them to make themselves available - starting with paying them more. I think that might help. But if someone has no sense of civic duty, paying them more to turn up isn’t going to make much difference, is it? If more money is the only reason they do turn up - then do we really want them on a jury? Would they be there for the right reason? At the moment, you get $62 a day for jury service. Which is chickenfeed. As John Munro says, it’s nowhere near enough - especially for people who are self-employed. At the same time, we’ve got this guy in Auckland saying today that he will never make himself available for jury duty again after his experience. He’s really brassed-off after he took leave from his job and spent three days waiting around the court building doing nothing. He wasn’t selected for any trials and, after three days, they told him he was done. Nico van Rooyen was very excited to be called up for jury service. But it’s only left him out of pocket and a harsh critic of the system. He says: "I won't ever do it again. Believe you me, it's the biggest waste of time I have ever experienced, The selection process is a farce of gigantic proportions." He says 80 people waited at the district court for several hours and then, without any scrutiny, were reduced to 40. He was then told to turn-up at court the next morning. He did that and waited all day and was told to come back the following day. Day three, he turned up and at lunchtime he was told he could leave. He says the system needs a shake-up. “Not a single one of my friends or customers had anything good to say about jury service. Some said, ‘just make an excuse for work’. Some had been excused from it between three and seven times. But not me, mate. I wanted to do it.” Never again, though, he says. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do you feel better off than you did three years ago? With it being election year, that’s the question politicians are going to be asking you. It’s the question I’m asking you too in light of the latest unemployment numbers - which are the highest in more than a decade. That’s the overall number. In Canterbury, things are a little bit better. The unemployment rate here is down and we’ve got 12,000 extra jobs. That was in the three months to December.  Nevertheless, we can’t deny that the better things are everywhere, then the better off we will all be. Not surprisingly, Finance Minister Nicola Willis is saying that employment growth is up. She says people are feeling more confident about the economy. Which is why the data released yesterday showed that, despite the overall unemployment rate increasing, there are more people out there looking for work because they’re confident that there is actually work out there for them. My view on that is that, yes, there is work out there - but you have to do a lot more than just email your CV and a cover letter. In some cases, you have to physically knock on doors - just like the old days. But back to whether or not we actually feel any better off. For me, it’s a mixed bag. But I suspect that’s a stage-of-life thing. The kids have all grown up - so life is naturally less expensive on that front. No school camps and sports trips to pay for. I’m not buying clothes or shoes for kids who keep outgrowing them. So life is cheaper for me on that front. Nevertheless, every time I go through the check-out at the supermarket, I’m still blown away by how much it costs. Not to mention what it’s like if you’ve still got the kids at home and you’re doing the weekly shop to keep them fed and watered. Then, if you’ve got a home loan, there’s the mortgage rates.  They’re still on the up and who knows what further increases might be on the cards with the Reserve Bank still fighting the inflation battle. As one of our listeners, Paul, points out: “Inflation is up, interest rates are up, unemployment is up and redundancies continue. Store closures continue too.” I’m guessing Paul’s answer to my question is that he doesn’t feel any better than he did three years ago. But what about you? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I think the Government is making a terrible mistake ditching the second practical test for new drivers. I like some of the changes it’s making to the driver licensing system. But getting rid of the second practical isn’t one of them. I’ll tell you why. But, first, what bits do I like? And what is missing from the changes?  For starters, I like the idea of a zero-alcohol limit for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government is going to apply that to all new drivers - whatever their age. I would have gone further and introduced a zero-alcohol rule for all drivers. But this is a good start. I also like the increased learner period for new drivers under-25 - which makes total sense because the numbers tell us, don’t they, that any driver under the age of 25 is at greater risk of injury or death. So the more time they spend as a learner driver - which stops them running around town with passengers - that has to be a good thing. As to what’s missing - I’ve always thought it’s nuts that we only train and test new drivers within the town or city limits on 50 kph roads and do nothing to prepare them for driving on the open road. But my real concern is the second practical test getting the flick. 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. When someone is starting out as a new 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 with new drivers only having a practical test to get their restricted licence - and never being tested again until they’re well past retirement age - that is not going to make our roads safer. The second practical test is the perfect opportunity for any bad driving habits someone has developed while they’ve been on their learner and restricted licences to be picked up and ironed out. Because, if they fail, they remember.  LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How on earth did we get to the point where we’ve got schools saying today that kids are starting school without some of the most basic skills? And when they say basic, they mean basic. According to the Auckland Primary Principals’ Association, there are five-year-old kids starting school who can’t talk, who can’t feed themselves and who haven’t been toilet trained. I think I’ve got a partial solution to this problem. Which would mean putting more pressure on parents to make sure their kids are school-ready.  I’ll get to that. But first, here’s the scale of the problem. Nearly 90 per cent of Auckland primary schools say new entrant students are needing more help than ever before to reach a level where they’re ready to learn. Massey Primary School assistant principal, Anna Watkin, is one of the educators speaking out today. She says her school is seeing increasing numbers of children entering the classroom who can’t hold a pencil or recognise their name. She says: “They struggle with empathy, focus, and even basic things like toileting. It takes at least three years to catch them up to expected curriculum standards.” And this is not just an Auckland problem. I was talking to someone who said there are new entrants turning-up at the Christchurch school their kids are at who can’t eat their lunch on their own.  What’s more, parents at their child’s school have been warned that, if their Year One child wets or soils their pants, the teachers won’t be cleaning it up. They’ll call the parents and get them to come and sort it out. But that’s putting the onus on the parents' way too late. The pressure needs to go on parents' way before Day One at school - and here’s how you’d do it. I think every child about to start school should be tested for the basic skills you would expect them to have at age 5. So, they’d be tested to check they can do things like feed themselves and go to the toilet. You might think schools don’t have time to do all that. But my response is that schools also don’t have the time to deal with these kids once they’re in the classroom, either. At least by testing them before they start, the school and teachers would have a warning that they’re going to be dealing with kids who don’t know the basics. If we were going to be really hard on it, we’d tell parents or caregivers to keep their kids at home until they can do these basic things. So, they wouldn’t be allowed to start school until they could prove they were toilet-trained and all of that. I think that would be going too far. But at least if a child was tested for these basics before starting, schools would have a better idea or a warning of what they’re going to be dealing with. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am liking the sound of a law change being introduced in New South Wales, where they are no longer going to allow good character references to be factored into court sentences. You know the drill. Someone is found guilty of a crime, they get their mates to write to the judge saying what a great person they are and how they’ve done all these good things. The judge reads all these glowing references and, when it comes to handing down a sentence, gives them some sort of discount because of their “good character”. The New South Wales government has decided it’s not having any more of that. And I think we should do the same thing here. Because someone’s so-called good character means zilch to their victim or their victims, doesn’t it? If we’re going to make noises about the criminal justice system needing to be more victim-focused, then this would be a pretty good start. Because how galling must it be for the victim of a crime to turn up at the sentencing and hear about all these wonderful things that have been said about the person who offended against them? What’s more, how galling must it be to not only hear how wonderful this person apparently is, but to also then witness the judge discounting their sentence because of these glowing reports. Even if someone has done amazing things in the past, that doesn’t make their offending any less serious. It doesn’t diminish the impact of their offending on their victim or their victims, does it?  Not that good character references are going to disappear altogether in New South Wales. They’re still going to be allowed during the trial process. But they’re not going to be coming across the desk of judges when they’re about to dish out sentences. The change follows a report by the New South Wales Sentencing Council which said the references are based on a vague and uncertain concept. It said just because someone has a good character reference, that doesn’t tell the sentencing judge anything about the likelihood of someone re-offending or the likelihood of them being rehabilitated. Which makes total sense. It also says that good character discounts are traumatising for victims. I couldn’t agree more. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Talk about déjà vu.  The smell from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley has been a shocker this week and people have had a gutsful.  City councillor Yani Johanson says making people wait for another three years is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner. I think it’s ridiculous that it has taken over four years for the problem to still exist.  I agree that it should be fixed sooner. But I don’t have any hope of that happening. Because the council has cocked this up from the outset and seems incapable of doing it any faster. Which tells me that it has learnt next to nothing.  Remember it did the big mea culpa and admitted that, at the very least, it could have communicated better with people living in the area? And how it was going to do a better job blah blah blah. Right from the start, the council had this “we know best” attitude and was very dismissive of people’s concerns. And it’s still at it. It’s doing a very good job of explaining why it’s so bad this week - that the recent heavy rain seems to be behind it. Which is all very well. But, as I’ve said many times, people don’t care what you know - until they know that you care. And I don’t see the council showing too much care. Did you see the council guy on the news last night go all sheep-ish when he was asked about compo or support for people living with the stench?        But it’s not just Bromley that’s affected. I was in Mairehau yesterday and the smell was really bad.  But I’m not living with it all the time. Unlike Gaylene Ratima. She lives in Bromley and she woke up at 4 o’clock the other morning thinking the dog had done something on the carpet. She soon realised that the rotten egg smell had nothing to do with the dog and that it was coming from outside the house. It was the stench from the wastewater treatment plant seeping-in through the windows and doors - which were all closed. Imagine what that must be like. In fact, she reckons the smell this week is worse than it was after the treatment plant fire back in November 2021. Which is why councillor Yani Johanson is saying today that making people wait for another three years for the smell problem to be fixed is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner.  As he points out - the way things are going, it’s going to take longer than it took to build the new One New Zealand stadium.   The fire was in November 2021 - over four years ago - and the council’s going to take another three years to fix it. Totally unacceptable. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Before the weekend, questions were already being asked as to why the campground at Mt Maunganui wasn’t evacuated before last week’s devastating landslide. That will be one of the things looked into as part of this independent investigation the local council is initiating. There will be all sorts of questions and, hopefully, a lot of answers.   But there is one thing we know for sure already. We don’t need an investigation to tell us that what happened on Thursday is a wake-up call for all of us. As tragic as it is, it is a wake-up call. But will we learn from it? I'd like to think so. But, based on history, I’m not so sure. Because I was very surprised to find out over the weekend that, historically in New Zealand, landslides have been more deadly than earthquakes. Tom Robinson is a senior lecturer in disaster risk and resilience at the University of Canterbury, and he was saying at the weekend that landslides have claimed more lives than all of our earthquake disasters. That landslides are our most deadly hazard. I had no idea. Which tells me how little we have learned from previous landslides. And, even though we’re all gutted by what’s happened at Mt Maunganui, chances are we’ll all move on.  We’ll keep doing things like removing trees from hillsides - something that people in the Mt Maunganui area are already making noises about. We’ll have this council review and we’ll hear that, yes, perhaps the early warnings raised by locals on Thursday morning should have been acted on sooner. But that will be about it. I remember growing up in Dunedin when the Abbotsford landslide happened. It was 8 August 1979. That was major. More than 60 houses lost. 600 people evacuated. Thankfully, no fatalities or major injuries. The Abbotsford landslide happened after people in the area had been saying for years that there were signs of land movement. Cracks on people’s properties - inside and out. And then, on the night of 8 August, away it went.   That was 46 years ago. So, if we didn’t learn anything from that experience, what hope that we’ll learn anything from this? Or more to the point, what hope that - whatever we learn - leads to the kind of change and accountability needed to, at the very least, limit the chances of it happening again? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.