/on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/rss 九一星空无限 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 14:27:03 Z en /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-fix-the-clean-slate-law-or-get-rid-of-it/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-fix-the-clean-slate-law-or-get-rid-of-it/ How do you feel about people being allowed to hide their convictions? There are two ways of doing it. 1) Just don’t tell people about it. Or use the clean slate legislation, which wipes your record clean if you’ve had no convictions for seven years. If you’ve been to prison for your offences though, you don’t qualify. Concerns about the legislation are being raised after an Auckland man with historical indecency convictions was able to pass multiple police checks, become registered as a teacher, and abuse nine girls. Which has law expert Bill Hodge saying that the law needs an overhaul. But I think we would be better off getting rid of it. Because the bigger picture here is whether we think someone should be able to hide their convictions after a certain period of time so they can get on with their life without it hanging over them. I think there should be complete transparency, and here’s why: If you’re an employer, under our health and safety laws, you are responsible for the safety of anyone and everyone working for you. To do that, you need to be confident that you are bringing people into your business or your organisation who are of, what they call, “good character”. How can you do that if there are things about someone you don’t know? Things like past criminal convictions? Remembering too that the convictions we’re talking about here aren’t things like murder. But let’s say, for example, someone was a menace on the roads when they were younger and had numerous convictions because of that. Seven years down the track, would you want to know about that if you were looking at giving them a job? I would. What about someone who had convictions for violence that weren’t quite serious enough for them to end up in prison? Someone who had a history of going out on a Saturday night and getting lippy in the pub? Seven years down the track, would you want to know about that if you were looking at giving them a job? I would. Dishonesty convictions? You’d want to know about those too, wouldn’t you? Imagine how better that would be for the person with the convictions, as well? Everything would be out in the open, there’d be no fear of people finding out through word-of-mouth and the problems that would create. I’m all for giving people a second chance, but only if all of the cards are on the table.  Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:39:54 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-regional-councils-tone-deaf-40k-pay-increase/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-regional-councils-tone-deaf-40k-pay-increase/ What would you say to a $40,000 pay rise? Yes please? If you’re the chief executive of Environment Canterbury regional council, you would. It’s been revealed that in the last financial year, Stefanie Rixecker’s pay increased by 9.3 %, upping her salary by $40,000 to just under $480,000, making her the highest-paid regional council boss in the country. And this wasn’t one of those decisions by the Independent Remuneration Authority, which sets the pay levels for politicians, which also gives politicians the excuse of saying they have no control over what they get paid. This decision was made by the elected council members. An increase that the chair of ECAN, Craig Pauling, is busy defending. He says the $40,000 pay increase is "appropriate and deserved". Appropriate and deserved because the chief executive is a respected leader and is running ECAN during a tricky time for local government. Craig Pauling says: “It is important to our council that we have a high-performing and respected chief executive at the helm, during this significant time of change for local government.” Time of change alright. Which is what the Government has been telling councils. And I imagine the noise from Wellington will get even louder when news of this pay increase makes it to the Beehive. The chair of the council can say all he likes about the chief executive being brilliant at her job and how she has a lot on her plate and how it’s her job to lead ECAN through change and all that, but what he is missing, and what every one of those councillors who voted for this unfathomable pay increase is missing, is that a pay increase of just under 10% is la-la land stuff. On several fronts. The most obvious is what a $40,000 pay increase for the chief executive of a regional council looks like to the rest of us. Those of us who pay rates to ECAN. The other reason why this move is so wrong right now is because it looks to me like ECAN is explicitly ignoring the noises coming from the Government about local councils needing to cut their cloth. How can you have these kinds of expectations coming at you —as well as the likes of regional development minister Shane Jones declaring war on regional councils— yet still give your chief executive a huge pay increase? It shows just how out of touch our regional councillors are.  Thu, 21 Aug 2025 01:14:15 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-why-is-performance-pay-such-a-no-no-for-teachers/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-why-is-performance-pay-such-a-no-no-for-teachers/ You won’t get me tooting for the striking high school teachers. Because I don’t think they’re reading the room at all. On the picket lines, unhappy that they've been offered a 3% increase over three years. And this is nothing to do with the kids not being able to go to school today, because high school kids don’t need babysitting. They can just stay at home and work on their assignments, or go to the mall, or go into town. The reason I think the teachers are going to find it difficult to get a lot of love today is because I think most people are like me and don’t think that every single teacher signed up to the union deserves a pay rise.  And think that a teacher’s pay should be based on their individual performance in the job. I reckon plenty of teachers feel that way privately, as well. Yes, they might want to earn a bit more themselves, but I bet you there is no shortage of teachers who think some of their colleagues aren’t up to it. Who think some of their colleagues don’t deserve to be recognised with a pay rise. But that’s the system as it is at the moment in the state school sector – pay rises for everyone. Once up on a time, I probably would have been happy with that one-size-fits-all approach, but what good is a mind if you can’t change it? And I have. I think, like pretty much every other worker in society, teachers’ pay should be based on how well they do their job. Whenever performance pay for teachers is discussed, questions about measuring performance are raised. But, at a time where everything can be analysed to the nth degree, I’m pretty confident that we could come up with a robust system to evaluate and measure an individual teacher’s performance. Hard-liners would probably say that it could or should be down to test results and exam results and nothing else. But I think that would be too simplistic. Yes, results would have to part of it, but not the only things measured. For example, how would you measure the performance of a teacher who might have several kids in their class who need specific support? They might be neuro-diverse, or they might have learning difficulties because of things like foetal alcohol syndrome. That’s where parent feedback would come into it. Because while a student with learning difficulties might not score highly in all these tests and things the Government is bringing-in, their parents would notice whether they were engaged in school or not. You imagine a parent saying to a principal that their child has never been so enthusiastic about learning and how much they love their teacher – there’s a performance measurement right there. But it is ironic, isn’t it, that teachers are busy evaluating and marking the kids on their performances, but no one measures or evaluates theirs.  Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:45:24 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-are-councils-really-the-best-outfits-to-be-in-charge-of-the-water/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-are-councils-really-the-best-outfits-to-be-in-charge-of-the-water/ We are going to pay more for water services. But even though it's coming about because of government policy, I’m not blaming Wellington. I’m blaming our councils.  Councils that should be ashamed of how they ran down our water infrastructure to the extent that millions of litres of water disappear every day because of cruddy pipes.  And the consequence of that neglect and incompetence is going to hit us in the pocket.  Two examples. In Christchurch, household water bills are expected to increase by $900 a year. In Selwyn, the yearly increase in water charges could be as high as $1800 a year.  Local Government Minister Simon Watts is saying the Government’s Local Water Done Well policy, which is the alternative to Labour’s doomed 3 Waters policy, is "the best approach” to sorting out our water infrastructure.  But I wonder if you’re starting to realise that Labour’s approach wasn’t so bad after all?  Under that model, control of drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater would have been taken away from local councils and handed over to new water authorities.  It would’ve taken away ownership of water infrastructure, too.  I’m more than happy to put my hand up and say, at the time, it was the ownership bit that got me going.    Back then, I thought the then-Labour Government was offering peanuts to take over ownership of water infrastructure.   But I am more than happy to put my hand up now and say that wasn’t the big deal I once thought it was, and I think we would have all been better off under Labour’s model. Because not only are we going to be paying more for our water, but there are also going to be a truckload more water entities than there would have been.    Under 3 Waters, there would have been 10 entities. Now, it’s already looking like we’ll have more than 40 water service providers involving different councils.   So more bureaucracy and more costs, all in the name of local ownership and control.   All in the name of local ownership and control by local councils which, because of their neglect of the water infrastructure year-after-year, are going to be hitting us with big increases in water charges. Local councils who have failed us.   If councils had done what they should have done and not kicked the infrastructure spending can down the road time and time again, then maybe we wouldn’t be feeling so fleeced.  Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:56:40 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-should-nz-build-a-nuclear-reactor-to-attract-tech-giants/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-should-nz-build-a-nuclear-reactor-to-attract-tech-giants/ How would you feel about New Zealand building small nuclear reactors to generate more power? That’s what the Maxim Institute think-tank is calling for. Saying that, if we did, more of the world’s biggest technology companies could be attracted here to establish big data centres and that would add billions of dollars to the economy. Thomas Scrimgeour from the Maxim Institute says the rest of the world is going nuclear on the power generation front and we need to catch up. He also thinks New Zealanders could be convinced that small nuclear power generators are a good thing. Saying that, in the 1970s, it was assumed that New Zealand would one-day use nuclear energy to generate power. But that changed in the 1980s because of nuclear testing in the Pacific. I’m not as confident as him. I’m open to finding out more about nuclear power generation. But I think if you did something like a referendum on it, most people would be against it. I may be wrong. But that’s my hunch. Because our nuclear-free policy has muddied the waters bug time. Our policy doesn’t even let ships that are nuclear-powered into our waters. Let alone ships carrying nuclear weapons. And, because of that, a lot of people think if nuclear weapons are bad then anything and everything nuclear is bad. But my mind is more open than that. I’m not saying it would be easy to convince me that we should be using nuclear energy to generate power. I’d have just as many reservations as the next person. But why can’t we at least agree to look into it? You know what would happen, though. Even the exercise of investigating further would be hijacked by those who just cover-up their ears and don’t want to know. Or, more to the point, it would be hi-jakced by those who want to cover up not just their own ears - but everyone else’s ears, as well. But I’m up for us looking into it. The reason the Maxim Institute is pushing this thinking today is that it wants us to take advantage of all the big technology companies wanting to set-up big data centres. Especially for artificial intelligence. They’re saying there’s big money in that for New Zealand, potentially. Microsoft has committed $1 billion to local data centres. While Ammazon Web Services’ Auckland development is expected to contribute around $10.8 billion to the economy over the next 15 years. We need the power to run them and attract more data centres here. But they need truckloads of power and, as things are at the moment, we aren’t in a position to offer truckloads of power. Which is why the Maxim Institute is saying we need to go nuclear. My mind is open to it. But what about yours? Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:30:56 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-how-i-feel-about-armed-cops-after-this-weeks-shootings/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-how-i-feel-about-armed-cops-after-this-weeks-shootings/ When I first heard about the police shooting and killing someone they had actually gone to help, like most people, I wondered how the hell that could happen.   This is the shooting in Bryndwr in Christchurch overnight on Wednesday, which left a woman dead and a man critically injured.   As always happens, the armchair experts haven’t been slow in coming forward. For example, demanding to know why the police couldn’t have shot the woman in the leg, rather than taking her life.   But unless we have been in the position of a dealing with something like that —a situation where the woman had been in danger but then threatened police with a knife—  we can't really criticise the police.   And can you imagine how the officer who fired those shots is feeling today?   But what I am asking is whether or not this tragedy has had any impact on my attitude towards the arming of our police.   And I can honestly say that my attitude hasn’t changed. Despite the tragic outcome, I still think our police need to be armed – in fact, more so than they are already.   You might remember the survey by the Police Association which found that 69% of police officers wanted to be armed on a regular basis. That’s more than two-thirds of our cops who said they reckon they need guns to keep themselves safe on the job.   Over the years, some people have said that arming every police officer would do more harm than good.    Here are a couple of examples: Poto Williams, when she was Police Minister, said that arming officers would “change the community’s relationship with the police”. Which I thought at the time was a load of nonsense.   And I still do, because the relationship has already changed and it’s putting the lives of our cops at risk everyday. Which is why more than two-thirds of them said in that survey that they want to be armed more regularly.    The late Chester Borrows —who was a former National MP and a former cop— was another one anti-guns for cops. I remember him saying that a general arming of the police would see more officers being shot and more civilians being shot. His view was more guns, more deaths.   But how I’ve always seen it, is that it’s very weird we have a workplace health and safety system in New Zealand that is hellbent on keeping workers safe at work by making sure they’re sitting at their desk in the right position, but we’re more than happy for police officers not to be kept as safe at work as they could or should be.   Which is why over recent years, I’ve come to think that police officers should be able to carry a pistol at all times.   And, despite the tragic events in Christchurch the other night, I still feel that way.  Fri, 15 Aug 2025 01:17:21 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-boris-fronted-up-to-a-covid-inquiry-why-arent-our-lot/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-boris-fronted-up-to-a-covid-inquiry-why-arent-our-lot/ I can recall a conversation I had about a month ago with Labour leader and former Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins about Part 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into his government’s pandemic response.   And he was saying that he was waiting to be invited to appear, and wouldn’t be asking for an invite, and wouldn’t be gate-crashing. That was around the time that he was also saying the Inquiry was a platform for conspiracy theorists.  And I said at the time that, if Chris Hipkins was eventually invited and he declined, then he could forget about being Prime Minister again.  Since then, it turns out he has been asked to front-up to the inquiry in person - and he has declined.  Dame Jacinda Ardern, former finance minister Grant Robertson and former health minister Ayesha Verrall have also been asked to appear. And they've all declined as well.   All of them, on the basis of advice from lawyers who are being paid by the taxpayer, that appearing at the Inquiry could attract abuse towards family members and that images and recordings from the Inquiry hearings could be “tampered with and misused”.   All of that’s probably true. But, even then, this is nonsense.   Maybe Hipkins, Dame Jacinda, Robertson, and Verrall need to be reminded that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson fronted up in person to the Covid Inquiry in Britain.   He didn’t hide behind written responses. Which, as we know, are always full of weasel words that go unchallenged. It wasn’t a holiday for Boris, but he fronted.   And because Chris Hipkins, especially, isn’t fronting, he is political toast.    Imagine if he had said to the others, “Okay, you guys aren’t going, but I’m still the leader of the Opposition, so I am going to front”. If he’d taken that approach, he would’ve had a few days where it might have been uncomfortable for him, but it would be over and done with.   Because if you have a very low opinion of the way Labour handled the pandemic, your low opinion isn’t going to get any worse if Hipkins is grilled in-person at the Inquiry, is it?   In fact, you might even admire him for fronting up. You might even give him credit for it.  But he's not. And in doing so, he's written-off whatever he chance he had of leading Labour to victory next year.  Thu, 14 Aug 2025 01:34:45 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-how-do-we-pay-for-new-roads-without-tolls/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-how-do-we-pay-for-new-roads-without-tolls/ Like anyone, if I can get something for free - I’ll take it. But if it’s something I have to pay for, then I’ll pay it. Which is how I’m feeling about all this fuss over the new Woodend Bypass, north of Christchurch, being a toll road. Granted, I won’t be a daily user, so the financial impact on me won’t be the same as it will for someone who uses it every day. But let’s get a grip. Toll roads are the future. Tell that to Waimakariri mayor Dan Gordon, though, who is very upset that NZTA plans to charge car drivers $2.50 for a return trip on the bypass. He says many families can’t afford that. It will cost $5 for trucks, by the way. I'm not sure what planet Dan Gordon has been on for the last 12 months. But this idea of the new bypass being a toll road was being hinted at by the Government more than a year ago. Last July, Simeon Brown was Transport Minister and he was saying back then that charging people to use the new road was definitely on the table.   But Dan Gordon's not the only one upset about it. The principal of Kaiapoi North School isn’t happy, either. Jason Miles reckons most locals will just avoid the toll road altogether - so they don’t have to pay - and they’ll use the road that goes past his school instead.   And he’s worried about the impact that could have on the safety of his students. Now if I was awarding a prize to either the mayor or the school principal for the strongest argument against the road toll, I’d give it to the school principal. Because, ever since the bypass at Woodend has been discussed, safety has been a major issue. So, yes, it would seem counterintuitive to spend billions on a bypass only to have it create other safety issues because of people not wanting to pay to use it and using an alternative route. But these days - if we want something, we have to pay for it. Which is what Nick Leggett from Infrastructure New Zealand is saying too. He says if we say no to tolls, we’re saying no to new highways.   He says: “It’s disappointing to see local mayors lining up to oppose tolling the proposed Woodend Bypass. We all need to face facts. If we want safer, faster, better highways, the users of those roads need to be willing to pay something for them.   “As a nation, we naturally want the best of everything, but that doesn’t come for free.”   Nick Leggett goes on to say: “The fairest and most sustainable approach is for those who use the road to contribute to its upkeep and operation. It is not fair to ask all taxpayers, many of whom will never use the road, to foot the bill.” And he won’t be getting any argument from me.  LISTEN ABOVE Wed, 13 Aug 2025 05:21:10 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-why-luxon-and-hipkins-are-neck-and-neck/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-heres-why-luxon-and-hipkins-are-neck-and-neck/ If I asked you who you would rather go and have a beer with, Christopher Luxon or Chris Hipkins, who would you choose?   I’d choose Luxon any day. One slight technicality is that he doesn’t drink. But he’d have a lime and soda or whatever he likes to drink, I’d have a beer and we’d probably have a very nice time.   Reason being that on the occasions that I’ve met him in person, he comes across as a very good guy and good fun to be around. I’ve met Hipkins several times too, but I think he’d be a bit more earnest or serious than Luxon.   So why isn’t that coming through in the poll results? Why aren’t there more people wanting to go and have a beer with Luxon?   Why are there almost as many people who would choose have a drink with Chippy?  Which I know isn’t the official question polling companies ask voters, but you get what I mean.  According to last night’s 1九一星空无限-Verian poll, Christopher Luxon’s popularity as Prime Minister is the lowest it’s been in two years.   Last night’s preferred prime minister result had him on 20%, and Labour’s Chris Hipkins breathing down his neck on 19% – which has all the headline writers predicting his demise.    Here’s an example of one: “Luxon’s leadership running out of oxygen as polls tighten”.   You may think these poll results are a load of nonsense, but I don’t. Because it wasn’t just the 1九一星空无限 poll that came out in the last 24 hours.    We also had a Taxpayers Union poll out yesterday which showed a very similar result in preferred Prime Minister. That poll had Christopher Luxon on 20.2% and Chris Hipkins on 20.2%.   So do I believe these poll results? Yes I do.    And why do I think Christopher Luxon is so unpopular with voters? I’m taking my cue from National Party voters I’ve spoken to recently who are shaking their heads.  The common themes that come through are that Luxon is letting Winston Peters and David Seymour run rings around him, that his government —especially his Finance Minister— isn’t delivering anything meaningful, and that he’s still blaming everything on the previous government.  Not that the last government achieved much, but surely people expected the bar to be a bit higher with this government. So that’s why he is polling so low – people see him as a let down.   He’s seen as weak, letting Seymour and Peters rule the roost and he doesn’t own the problems he’s trying to fix. He’s still pointing the finger at Labour more than halfway through his government’s three-year term. That’s letting him down big time.   And people don’t think his government delivering them anything —especially on the economic front— and that he should be giving Nicola Willis the flick and giving someone else the finance job.    Because these National voters I’ve spoken to are saying that she has been a big disappointment.   But when you’re the leader of the party and when you’re the Prime Minister, you’re the one who cops it. And Christopher Luxon is copping it. And he deserves to cop it.   And if we did go and have that drink – that’s what I’d be telling him.   Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:53:21 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-stadium-train-is-an-excellent-idea-lets-make-the-most-of-it/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-stadium-train-is-an-excellent-idea-lets-make-the-most-of-it/ TOPIC 1 EDITORIAL: STADIUM TRAIN I love this plan for an express passenger train to get people into Christchurch for events at the new One New Zealand Stadium, which is due to open in April next year. But I’ll love it even more if the councils around here chip-in to pay for a new railway station at the corner of Moorhouse Avenue and Colombo Street, which the rail company behind the plan is describing as a “key ingredient”. Because, otherwise, there’s a 4.3 kilometre journey by road from the current station at Tower Junction - which could take about 22 minutes by car. Private outfit Mainland Rail has come up with the idea to get nearly 6,000 people into Christchurch from Rolleston and Rangiora (and even possibly Ashburton). It’s saying an express service from Rolleston would get people into the centre of town in 20 minutes. It would be about 25 minutes from Rangiora. It’s worked out how it can work-in with the KiwiRail freight train schedules and it’s already bought second-hand carriages to run the service. But it’s the new railway station on the corner of Moorhouse and Colombo that needs sorting out. And, with the likes of Selwyn and Waimakariri councils not putting any money at all into the stadium itself, this is the opportunity - at last - for them to have some skin in the game. Especially, considering that this service is all about getting people from their areas into town for the big matches and concerts. Maybe even Ashburton council could get involved. ECAN, as well - considering it’s been pushing the idea of commuter rail services in the Greater Christchurch area. I know there will probably be no shortage of people who think that, if a private company wants to set-up this service, then it should cover all of the costs. Including the costs of a new train station. But I don’t see it that way, at all. Because some sort of drop-off point for train passengers at that spot on the Colombo/Moorhouse corner would be brilliant - and not just for people using the stadium trains. There’ll be others too who think it should be KiwiRail paying for it. But you can forget about Kiwirail coming up with the money anytime soon. If at all. So, if this thing is going to fly, then it’s time for our local councils to step up. Who wouldn’t want to see tourists getting on and off the Tranz Alpine service to the West Coast in the centre of town? Instead of that toy town train station at the back of Tower Junction. And if we are really serious about getting people in Rangiora and Rolleston to even entertain the idea of taking a train to work instead of driving, then we need to offer them something better than a train to Addington. This idea has the potential to be the start of something bigger and I think it's brilliant Mon, 11 Aug 2025 01:00:51 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-all-aboard-the-speed-hump-bandwagon/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-all-aboard-the-speed-hump-bandwagon/ You can tell council elections are coming up, because that’s the only reason the Christchurch City Council is going to start using high friction road surfaces at pedestrian crossings, instead of speed humps.     Even though it knows that speed humps are safer. Even though it knows that it won’t slow down traffic. But you’ve got to keep people sweet when there’s an election coming up.    They’re starting with a pedesttian crossing Halswell, with the local councillor saying they’re doing it so that people don’t get brassed off.   Andrei Moore says: "We are putting safe infrastructure in without pissing everyone off.”   And there’s your evidence that this isn’t being done for safety. It’s being done to try and calm down all the whingers ahead of October's election.   Talk about shallow.   I know when these speed humps things started appearing, twe all thought “what the hell are these things all about?” And, since then, it's become incredible fashionable to slag them off.    But this is the problem when you get a bunch of people sitting around a council table all thinking they’re road safety experts when the only thing they're expert in is pandering to voters.   Apparently, the plus side of these high friction surfaces is that vehicles are less likely to skid, but they do nothing to slow traffic down.  When some muppet is screaming up to a pedestrian crossing and has to slam on the brakes, they’ll be at less risk of skidding.    At least with the speed humps, even the muppets are forced to slow down – that’s not going to happen with your high friction surface, is it?   Cost is another thing in favour of the high friction surfaces, as opposed to the sped humps. A report I’ve seen says installing a speed hump —including the aspahalt, the road marking, and the signage— costs somewhere between $30,000 and $55,000.   Whereas, the anti-skid, high friction road surface costs between $25,000 and $35,000. The fly in the ointment there though is that this special surface costs more to maintain than your speed hump.   But are these speed humps really that much of a problem? What’s so bad about something that forces drivers to slow down – especially when they’re approaching a pedestrian crossing?    There’s nothing wrong with that.   And, if you are totally honest with yourself, do speed humps really have that much of a negative impact on your life?   Or do you think you might have fallen into the trap and followed the crowd in your opposition to speed humps? Because I reckon that, in the grand scheme of things, they aren’t a problem at all.  Fri, 08 Aug 2025 02:22:11 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-pawns-in-chris-bishops-privatised-ruc-regime/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-pawns-in-chris-bishops-privatised-ruc-regime/ When I heard Transport Minister Chris Bishop talking about the Government’s changes to the road user charges system, I had a bit of a Max Bradford moment.   Max was the National Party minister who told us back in 1988 that his reforms of the electricity sector were going to mean cheaper power prices.   Which is what Chris Bishop was saying yesterday about the plan to ditch petrol taxes and move all vehicle owners to road user charges which, at the moment, are only paid by people with diesel, electric, and heavy vehicles.   He said: “From a cash flow point of view, it’ll help people. At the moment, when you go and fill your car up you pay petrol tax at the pump, right there at 70 cents per litre, roughly.”   The part of yesterday’s announcement that really caught my eye was NZTA not being responsible for collecting and processing the road user charge payments. Instead, that’s going to be farmed out to private operators which the government says will encourage “fairer competition”.   And, in saying that, the Government is trying to sell some sort of idea that by not having NZTA involved, these charges are somehow going to be cheaper.   Which is why I had Max Bradford ringing in my ears. Because he was talking nonsense when he said his reforms back in 1988 were going to mean cheaper power prices.   And Chris Bishop is talking nonsense if he expects us to believe that contracting private outfits to take over is going to mean cheaper costs for vehicle owners.   The minister says it’s possible we’ll pay our road user charges through an app, which is why the government wants to get private operators involved. Because it doesn't want to spend the time and money developing the technology and the systems.   But will this “fairer competition” it’s talking about really mean things being cheaper at our end? Of course not.    And this is not me having a dig at any of the companies who might have heard that announcement yesterday and saw an opportunity. Because that’s what business is all about: seeing opportunities.    And, again, this isn’t me having a dig at businesses, but they don’t do these kinds of things for free.   Being in business is all about clipping the ticket as much as possible. And no business is going to want to get involved in the new road user charging system if it can’t clip the ticket. That’s just how it is.   Which is why I don’t like the Government's plan to take NZTA out of the picture.   Yes, I support the shift to everyone paying road user charges, because that makes sense. Because when you use a road, it makes no difference whether you drive an old dunger or something more modern – you’re still using it.   With road user charges, you pay depending on how many kilometres you drive instead of how much fuel you buy. And if you’ve got the most fuel-efficient vehicle on the market, why should you effectively pay less to use the same road as someone who can only afford an old gas guzzler?    You shouldn’t. So the move to us all paying road user charges will get no argument from me. What I am pushing back on, though, is the plan to get private companies running the new system.   To let private companies clip the ticket which, as far as I can see, will only lead to us paying more.   Thu, 07 Aug 2025 01:03:25 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-i-asked-an-ai-bot-how-it-felt-about-marking-exams/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-i-asked-an-ai-bot-how-it-felt-about-marking-exams/ With the Government wanting artificial intelligence to be used to mark high school exams, I asked a ChatGPT bot how it felt about that.    And here’s what it said: "If the Government were to ask me to mark high school exams, I would feel (if I could feel) cautious optimism, with a big dose of responsible hesitation."   The bot said, on the upside, it could process thousands of scripts quickly, never get tired, and not suffer from the end-of-day brain fog that human markers do. It also wouldn't mark one student generously and another harshly on a bad day. And it could apply marking schedules with perfect consistency.   The bot also said there would be downsides. It said exam answers aren’t always clean-cut. A brilliant, unconventional insight might not fit the marking template, but a good teacher sees its value. That’s harder for AI to interpret correctly without "massive nuance training".   It said AI can reflect biases in its training data. Even small disparities in language use, cultural references, or phrasing could disadvantage students if the system isn’t carefully designed and constantly audited.   The ChatGPT bot also told me students, parents, and teachers would rightly ask how something was marked, and public confidence could be eroded.   It said, on balance, it would be in favour of "hybrid marking”, with AI doing pre-marking and humans handling the grey areas and double-checking. So AI would be a support tool.   In short, the AI bot said: "I’m capable. But I shouldn’t be trusted alone. Exam marking is too important to hand over fully to a machine - at least not yet."   Wed, 06 Aug 2025 01:01:52 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-i-like-the-ncea-changes-but/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-i-like-the-ncea-changes-but/ Yesterday, when the Government announced that it was getting rid of NCEA, my immediate reaction was that it was a mistake.   That we would have been much better sticking with the system we’ve got and improving it.   Twenty-four hours later, I still feel the same.    There are some aspects of the changes that I think are brilliant. But the more I’ve found out about it, the more convinced I am that this could all be done without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.   But here’s what I like.   Quite rightly, people seem to be very excited that the Government wants more young people leaving school with a better understanding of reading, writing, and maths. And it’s not going to get any argument from me.   Because I think we do need to up our game on that front. Which is why it’s going to have this assessment in Year 11 —which is the old 5th form— which will test students on their literacy and numeracy. That’s going to be called the Foundational Skills Award.   The other week, I was at the supermarket and there was a young guy running the check-out. I wanted to split the bill and, without punching numbers into the till trying to work out what half of the overall amount was, he did the numbers in his head. Correctly, by the way.   Which probably shows how low expectations have got when I’m impressed by a young guy at the checkout being able to divide something by two in his head.   So that part of what the government wants to do gets a big tick from me. Because being able to read, write, and do maths are essential for life – whatever you might end up doing after you leave school.   But that could all be done within the current system, we don’t need this major overhaul to achieve that.   I’m also loving the fact that kids wanting to do trades will be able to leave school with a qualification that sets them up for it.   I see one education expert is poo-pooing that, saying that it will create a two-tier system where some students will end up with a vocational qualification and others with an academic qualification.    But so what? That’s not two-tier. That’s not one qualification for the bright kids and one qualification for the thickies. James McDowell from the Motor Trade Association thinks it’s brilliant too that school kids are going to be able to do more at school to ready themselves for taking on a trade.    Other concerns coming through are that going back to the old-school system of more exams and pass or fail marks will mean more students finishing school without any qualifications.   And I agree that that is a real concern, because the way NCEA is structured at the moment means that someone can get credits for things that aren’t all that academic but still mean they leave high school with something to show for their time there.   And they don’t necessarily have to sit exams to get those credits.   So here’s what I’d do. I would keep NCEA, but I would incorporate the brilliant bits of what the Government's wanting to do.   I’d do the testing of reading, writing, and maths. And I would bring-in the trades training part of it too. And I would make sure there are more compulsory exams.   Then, when the kids leave school, I would give them a transcript, like they do at universities. Which would, basically, be a piece of paper showing what subjects they took at high school, what exam marks they got, and what marks they got for other assignments.   Overall, it would be a qualification. But then employers, for example, would be able to read it and see more detail of what a student actually did and actually achieved.   I think that would be way better than throwing everything in the air and starting again.  Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:32:18 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-should-the-christchurch-mayor-use-personal-funds-for-public-projects/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-should-the-christchurch-mayor-use-personal-funds-for-public-projects/ Just because someone can afford to do something, it doesn’t always mean they should do it.  Which is how I’m feeling about Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger using his own money to pay engineers to design a replacement for the controversial Park Terrace cycleway which, he says, is under-utilised and causing traffic congestion.  According to council data, 648 cyclists use it every week day. Which doesn’t sound under-utilised to me.  What’s more, I don’t like the idea of the mayor circumventing his in-house transport staff and getting some private engineers to come up with another design. I think it’s very sneaky.  You may remember the row over this one a couple of years back, when council transport staff blocked-off one of the lanes heading north on Park Terrace and turned it into a two-way cycle lane.  Marking it off with bollards and reducing that stretch of road to one-lane, instead of two.  If you can’t quite envisage where this is, it’s the stretch of road that goes from the Antigua boat sheds, past the museum, past Christ’s College and The George hotel, up to Salisbury Street.   Which, as I said at the time, was the outcome of the council transport people over-thinking things because they were concerned about cyclists and pedestrians being put at risk by the development work going on at Canterbury Museum.   So they thought that closing a lane of traffic, turning it into a cycleway, and making that stretch of road one-lane, instead of two, was the answer.  When this all flared-up back in 2023, Phil Mauger got into strife when he said council staff were “running amok and they need to be reined in”.  He also described staff as "the anti-car brigade".  Two years down the track - and with an election coming up - Phil has paid some engineers to come up with an alternative design.  Which would see the traffic lane used for the cycleway being reinstated and the 2.5 metre-wide shared footpath that runs between the road and the Avon River being widened to accommodate cyclists.   Personally, I think the idea Phil is pushing is a good one - but I don't like the fact that he’s worked around his own council engineers and paid other, private engineers to come up with a new design.  I know some people will think he’s being a bit of a legend and putting his money where his mouth is. But I don’t. Even though I think it would make much more sense to use some of that space between the footpath and the river.  The reason I don’t like what he’s done, is that he is riding roughshod over his transport staff and he’s riding roughshod over his council’s processes.  Because this cycleway is due to be in place for another three years. Some concillors didn’t like it at the time. But that’s how things ended up.  Even though the mayor has spent his own personal money getting these engineers to come up with a different design, it will only happen if he’s re-elected. And it’s not as if he’s going to pay for the work.  He says his plan will cost ratepayers about $300,000 and will be done within 100 days if he is still mayor after the election.  He also says it depends on him getting a working majority of what he calls like-minded councillors.  But just because he can afford to pay the outside engineers to come up with an alternative design - and even though I think the alternative design he’s proposing would be much better than the set-up at the moment - I don’t like what he’s done.  He’s top dog at the council and he needs to show the council and its staff more respect.   Mon, 04 Aug 2025 00:41:29 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-should-ncea-cater-more-to-students-that-arent-going-to-university/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-should-ncea-cater-more-to-students-that-arent-going-to-university/ It must be tricky being at school and feeling like you’re not doing anything to prepare you for what you actually want to do when you leave.  The Government is starting to think about that after this new report from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which says NCEA is too focused on kids wanting to go to university.  The report was prepared for Education Minister Erica Stanford who is promising some big changes.  The report says NCEA doesn’t do enough to get school students ready to work in the trades and hospitality. It says many students end up doing subjects that aren’t relevant to what they want to do when it comes to a career.  So could that be fixed, do you think, if students had the option of studying for an NCEA “trades entrance” qualification, similar to the university entrance qualification?  Dr Michael Johnston from the NZ Initiative think tank thinks so. And I think so too.  The irony is that, when NCEA was first developed, it was all about not being so focused on the academic kids and providing something which gave all students a useful qualification to take with them when they leave school.  But, as the qualifications authority is saying to the education minister, that hasn’t turned out to be the case for anyone wanting to be builders, or plumbers, or sparkies etc.  Which the tertiary education union agrees with and which is backed up by the numbers Dr Michael Johnston from the NZ Initiative has been throwing around.  He says 44 percent of school leavers aren’t enrolled in tertiary education. And only six percent of them end up in work-based training doing things like trades.  From what we’re hearing from the NZ Qualifications Authority and the tertiary education union, a big reason for that is that NCEA doesn’t do enough for students who either know they want to do a trade or the kids who might end up doing a trade if they learned more about it while at school.  And the brilliance of NCEA being expanded to include a trades entrance qualification - as well as the university entrance qualification - would be that, even if someone did leave school with a “trades entrance” certificate, they would still have the option of going to university if they wanted to down the track.  Because, once someone turns 20, they can go to uni whether they’ve got UE or not.  Michael Johnston says school students need to be given a much clearer idea of their options.  He says: "We just esteem university education much more highly than apprenticeship training for no really good reason. Trades people can earn great money and there's no reason why an arts degree, for example, should be seen as better than an electrical qualification or a plumbing qualification.”  Amen to that. Which is why I think his idea of giving high school kids the option of doing NCEA trades or NCEA university entrance is a brilliant idea  LISTEN ABOVE Fri, 01 Aug 2025 03:26:26 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-gang-numbers-are-up-so-what-next/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-gang-numbers-are-up-so-what-next/ The gangs were right, the Government was wrong.   That’s one way to interpret the news that, for the first time, the number of people on the national gang list is higher than 10,000.   The gangs were right. Because they said right from the outset that the Government could do what it wants but they will never go away.   And the numbers don’t lie, do they?   At the time of the 2023 election, there were 9,270 people on the national gang list. Now there are 10,009 – an increase of more than 700.   Which is why, as well as saying the gangs were right, you could also say that the Government was wrong. I think it’s too early, but I think we need to change our expectations a little bit. Which I’ll come back to.   Labour is crowing, of course. But before Ginny Andersen and Chris Hipkins get too carried away, they need to remember that when Labour came to power in 2017 there were 5,343 people on the gang list and by the time the 2023 election came around, that had increased by nearly 4,000.   So Police Minister Mark Mitchell —who has been the face of the gang patch ban and all of the other anti-gang initiatives— is correct when he says that the numbers aren’t increasing as fast as they were.    And he says that slower rate of growth is proof that the Government's tough-on-crime policies are working. The Prime Minister is backing that up, saying the Government is "smashing the gangs".   He’s saying: "I'm proud of the progress that we've made. Putting the gang patches ban in place – many people said that couldn't be done."   Assistant police commissioner Paul Basham is singing from the same songsheet. Saying that because the Government has given the police more power and resources, they’ve got a better handle on gang numbers and illegal gang activity.   Nevertheless, with numbers rising, what should happen next?   Do we accept that we’re never going to stop gang numbers growing? Do we go harder?  Or do we give the Government more time for its crackdown to work?    I’m prepared to give the Government a little bit more time. But I think we also need to adjust our expectations and forget about any idea of gang numbers falling dramatically.  Because there will always be gangs. But if the police have a better handle on what they’re doing and —because of that— those of us not involved in gangs feel safer, then that’s a good outcome in my book.   Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:30:00 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-now-is-not-the-time-for-80-pay-increases/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-now-is-not-the-time-for-80-pay-increases/ I understand what the Prime Minister is saying about these pay increases for board members at Crown agencies, such as Health NZ and Kāinga Ora, but I’m not buying it.    The top payment was $90,000. It’s now $160,000.   Christopher Luxon says the Government needs to offer higher pay for these board roles so they can attract the best people. But tell that to the 28,000 people who have lost their jobs in the past year.  Tell that to the hospital staff striking for more pay. Tell that to the hospital staff who have had a gutsful of staffing levels going south.   Tell that to most people in New Zealand, and I think they’ll say that the Government couldn’t be more tone deaf if it tried.   As Labour leader Chris Hipkins is saying, people are struggling to make ends meet and this just shows how out of touch the Government is.   To be fair, the Prime Minister is correct when he says that they need to make these roles worth people’s while. Because, whether we like it or not, the Crown is competing with the private sector in trying to get the best people.   But being correct doesn’t always make someone right, and someone needs to tell Christopher Luxon that people don’t care what he knows until we know that he cares.   There he was again yesterday saying that he understands that people are doing it tough at the moment. He knows. But does he care?   The way Public Service Minister Judith Collins puts it is that this is actually a strong move by the Government. Because past governments have been too chicken to pay its board members more, and she says we can’t expect these people to work for chickenfeed.   I get what Judith Collins is saying too. And I know that, in the scheme of things, it’s not as if these increased payments to board members will amount to a massive amount of money.   But for me it’s all about perception and the message it sends.  Yes, people putting their hands up to sit on government boards want to be recognised for their time and effort. But consider how busy the Government has been telling local councils to cut their cloth. Consider how busy the Government’s been telling government departments to cut their cloth.    Yes, people on government agency boards should be paid what they’re worth, but now is not the time for 80% pay increases.  Tue, 29 Jul 2025 01:41:31 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-under-staffed-departments-in-overrun-hospitals/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-under-staffed-departments-in-overrun-hospitals/ The news today that half of the departments at Christchurch Hospital are operating below full staffing levels doesn’t surprise me. In some departments, they are less than 80 percent of what they should be. So, if I’m not surprised, does that mean my expectations of the hospital system are pretty low? The answer to that is “yes”. I expect that the basics are covered and that’s about it. That our hospitals are full of brilliant people doing their best, stretched to the limit, covering the basics.     The nurses union is describing the staffing situation as “alarming”. One of its delegates has told our newsroom that it constantly feels like they don't have enough staff. And it would be great if they didn’t have to move staff around departments to try and cover everything. Health NZ says it gets that. But it’s dealing with increased demand (more patients) and it’s struggling to hire people. Here are some numbers for you. Child health, oncology and intensive care unit nursing have around 30 full-time equivalent vacancies. With two of those departments having roles vacant for more than a year. But none of that surprises me anymore.   Just like I’m not all that surprised by the news that Christchurch Hospital is getting relatives of patients to go in and sit with them and help out where they can. Again - is that because of my low expectations? That I’ve come to expect that the basics will be covered and that’s about it? But here’s where Health NZ’s sob story about not being able to hire staff starts to wear a bit thin. There are a whole bunch of nursing graduates ready to work, who haven’t been hired to work in our hospitals. Fifty-five percent of graduate nurses looking for graduate roles in a hospital have received rejection letters. Many of them for the second time. The mid-year intake has just been finalised - with 722 applying but only 323 getting placements. One of the ones who have received a rejection letter is Melanie McIntyre, of Christchurch. She came back here from Australia in 2019 to begin nursing training. She did a pre-health course in 2021 and started her degree in 2022. She says she thought nursing was a safe career but, three years down the track, she is disheartened and unemployed. After her first rejection, she spent eight months sitting in what they call the national talent pool. Which is, effectively, a waiting list for employers across the health sector looking for  entry-level nurses. But that’s been a no-goer for Melanie and, since February, she’s been volunteering at a charity hospital. She is so disheartened, that she would like to move back to Australia.   But she’s in her 40s and her kids aren’t keen on going back to Australia. So here she is in Christchurch, with a nursing degree, can’t get work in a hospital, and is doing volunteer work instead. She says: “It’s just so disheartening. I actually struggle to get out of bed because I’m not sure what else to do.” I bet. But I suspect that, what we’re seeing here, is the impact of hospitals not having enough senior people to supervise the new nurses on the wards. And, if that’s the case, then I don’t see things changing anytime soon. If at all. Which is why my expectations of the hospital system are, what you could describe, as pretty low. That it’s brilliant for the basics - but that’s about it. And only as long as the people doing the doing are prepared to keep going. But how do you rate your expectations of the hospital system?  LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 28 Jul 2025 02:11:48 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-what-do-sport-gender-guidelines-have-to-do-with-the-price-of-butter/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-what-do-sport-gender-guidelines-have-to-do-with-the-price-of-butter/ There will be no shortage of people today thinking that it's a brilliant move by the Government to ditch official guidelines for including transgender people in community sport and leaving it to the sporting organisations themselves to handle it.   But I think it’s just going to open a can of worms, and these people who think it’s great might think differently if they were on the committee of one of their local sporting clubs.   Because this is not elite sport we’re talking here, this is all about community sport.   And, however you might feel about transgender people competing in sport, you’ve got to admit that having guidelines on how to handle what can be a pretty fraught issue can only be a good thing.   Tell that to the Government though. Or, more specifically, tell that to NZ First.   Since 2022, sporting organisations and clubs have had these guidelines to work with, which say: “Transgender people can take part in sports in the gender they identify with”.    But now sporting organisations and sporting clubs are going to be left to handle it on their own.   NZ First wanted these guidelines ditched and, as a result of its coalition deal with National, Sports Minister Mark Mitchell wrote to the head of Sport NZ yesterday telling her to pull the plug on the guidelines.   The objective being to ensure that everyone competes on a level playing field and things aren’t compromised by gender-based rules.   Mark Mitchell says, when it comes to sport, the Government has a role to play in creating sporting opportunities for people, but it's not up to the Government to decide who should be included and how.   Which I think is a rather elegant way of describing it.   But it ignores the fact that, whether people like it or not, this is something that isn’t going to go away. Transgender people wanting to play sport and compete in the categories they want to compete in isn’t going to go away.   NZ First might not want to hear that. And anyone who thinks that someone born a male, for example, should only be allowed to compete against other males won’t want to hear that either.   But taking away these guidelines helps no one. Because, surely, something is better than nothing.    If you’re on the committee at your local rugby club or cricket club, for example, and someone who is transgender signs up to play and, let’s say they identify as female but are biologically male, what are you going to do?   For the past three years, you would have had these guidelines to refer to. Not that they were explicit rules, but they were guidelines – better than nothing.   Now the people on the committees at rugby clubs and cricket clubs and all sporting clubs and organisations up and down the country are going to be flying blind. And with everyone having their own personal views, it’s going to be a headache.   Mark Mitchell reckons “fair-minded New Zealanders” will be in favour of these changes, which he says are based on safety and fairness.   But all we’re seeing here is politics and if I was running a sporting organisation or a sporting club, I’d be saying “thanks for nothing” to the Government.  Thu, 24 Jul 2025 01:27:40 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-is-climate-change-a-major-issue-in-christchurch/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-is-climate-change-a-major-issue-in-christchurch/ Phil Mauger is back on board the climate change bandwagon today – just like he was before the last election.   I remember asking him three years ago what he thought the most pressing issue facing Christchurch was and he said climate change.   And he’s at it again today. So is current city councillor Sara Templeton, who also wants to be the city's next mayor.  It won’t be any surprise to anyone that Sara rates climate change as a top issue or a top priority. And good on her for saying so, because I agree. I think we’ve had our heads in the sand for too long.    So she’s talking today about the need for the city to get on with solid planning for dealing with climate adaptation. Which is easier said than done, of course. Especially with all this talk coming from Wellington about central government washing its hands in terms of helping local communities dealing with things like sea level rise.   As for Phil Mauger, I’ll believe his commitment to climate change when I see it.    He’s talking today about wanting to reduce greenhouse gases and is saying that converting trucks and other vehicles to hydrogen will make a difference.   But, no disrespect to Phil, anyone can bang-on about that and it probably sounds good. But like I say, the proof’s in the pudding. My message is the same for Sara Templeton.    But thank goodness they’re talking about it because I agree that climate change needs to be a top priority. But it does raise the question as to whether you agree with these two that addressing climate change has to be top of mind. Whether you think addressing climate change is a top priority for Christchurch.   We can bang-on about getting the basics done well, but what good is that going to be if we have city leaders who are quite happy to kick the climate change can down the road?   So it’s full marks from me to both of them for at least putting it out there as a top priority for the city.   Especially Sara Templeton, with her view that we need to get on with deciding how Christchurch is going to adapt. But she is bang on because the council already knows that $14 billion worth of property in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula could be at-risk from sea-level rise.    That’s the figure that came out a couple of years ago when the council made a submission to Parliament’s environment select committee.   And since then, what’s happened? What’s been done about it? Next to nothing.    The only person around that council table who has said anything of substance since is Sara Templeton herself who, in February last year, floated the idea of a new ratepayer levy to help with the cost of adapting to climate change.   Her argument was 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?   As you might expect, that didn’t go down too well with a lot of people. Because a lot of us are focused on the here and now and don’t give two hoots about what might be on the way.   Not to mention the people who don’t believe climate change and sea-level rise even exist.    What’s more, climate change doesn’t win elections, does it? Which is why you get people wanting to be mayors and councillors only talking about rates and rubbish and sticking to the basics.   Whereas what we really need are city leaders who will get out of the weeds and not worry about the minutiae of every little thing and actually get on with the job of ensuring we are ready.   Ready for the day —whenever that day might be— when $14 billion worth of property in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula is more than just at-risk from sea-level rise.  Wed, 23 Jul 2025 01:07:02 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-philanthropic-funding-for-new-medical-school-pfft/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-philanthropic-funding-for-new-medical-school-pfft/ Let's start with the positives in the news that the Government is pressing ahead with a new medical school at Waikato University.   120 new med students every year. You can’t argue with that.   But that’s about it for me.    I’m not going to criticise the Government for doing something to get more doctors, because we need them. Especially in rural and regional areas, which look to be the main focus of this new school.   But I think it would have been way better for the Government to invest more in the existing medical schools at Otago University and Auckland University.   Especially Otago, when you consider all the money that’s going into the new hospital down there.   I see that Otago University is saying the same sort of thing. But I suppose with former Labour cabinet minister Grant Robertson running the place, it would say that.   Auckland University seems to be a bit more diplomatic on it, but both universities have put up the same argument in the past: that, rather than starting something from scratch, it would be better to put the money into training more doctors at the medical schools already up-and-running.   The main concern for me though is the finances. The Government is putting-in less money into the Waikato medical school than it said it would, relying instead on the university and its financial backers to make up the shortfall.   Before the last election, National campaigned on a $380 million medical school, saying it would spend $280 million, and the university would chip in $100 million.   But yesterday the Government announced it would be contributing just over $85 million, and the university would be putting in $150 million with help from its donors.   Which has got the opposition parties asking questions too.   Green Party tertiary education spokesperson Francisco Hernandez says Treasury has already raised concerns about Waikato University’s ability to contribute to the costs.   He says: "The Government got advice that approving the Waikato medical school would raise the risk profile of Waikato University from medium to high.”    And, like me, he reckons the budget’s going to be blown.   "The cost estimates have shifted so much, I wouldn't be surprised if there's scope creep down the line and Waikato Uni ends up having to come back to the Government with a begging bowl, because the cost ends-up being more than what they thought it would be."  And that’s where I see this thing at risk of falling over – either falling over or needing more government money down the track.   Because as soon as anyone starts using the “ph” word, I get suspicious. And the government’s using the “ph” word. Philanthropists. People with money to donate to causes they believe in.  The cathedral in Christchurch – that was going to get truckloads of money from philanthropists, wasn’t it?   Canterbury Museum – the philanthropists were going to be writing out cheques for that project too, weren't they?   And, as someone with a bit of experience in universities and philanthropy, I can tell you that getting money out of people is way easier said than done.   Although —not wanting to be a complete downer— I’ve always said that, post-covid especially, philanthropists are much more likely to put money into things that help people, as opposed to just building something for the sake of it.   But raising money this way is a long haul. And anyone being asked to contribute will want to see a business case. They’ll want to see who else is on board. And that won’t happen overnight.   And I bet you that all the high rollers that the university might approach will look at the Government’s reduced investment and ask how committed it really is.   But here’s my prediction: It won’t be long before the university is knocking on the Government’s door, saying it needs more taxpayer money.   And at that point, we’ll all accept that investing more in our existing medical schools is a way better option.  Tue, 22 Jul 2025 01:14:15 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-pine-re-planter-says-some-will-think-its-madness-hes-right/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-pine-re-planter-says-some-will-think-its-madness-hes-right/ I’m going to start by quoting someone I’ve quoted before - Dr Nicola Day, who is a plant ecologist at Victoria University in Wellington. Knowing a thing or two about plants means she knows a thing or two about pine trees. And here’s how she describes them: “Pines are one of the most flammable plants on the planet." I referred to the same quote last year when the Government turned down a request to change the forestry rules, so that pine forests couldn’t be re-planted after the big Port Hills fire in February last year. The second big fire within seven years. And I thought of those comments again at the weekend when it was confirmed that the Christchurch Adventure Park is going to be re-planted in pine trees on land near a new housing development, which will eventually have 430 homes on it. Which I think is nuts. The owner of the adventure park land, John McVicar - who re-planted pines there after the first fire - knows some people will think it’s madness planting them again But he says arson is the problem - not the highly-flammable trees themselves.  Credit where credit’s due - from what I’ve seen reported, it seems he has looked into the idea of re-planting in natives which, of course, are less flammable than pine trees. But he’s saying that natives wouldn’t have worked and, what’s more, he’s saying that the highly-flammable pines themselves aren’t the problem - it’s people lighting fires who are the problem. In 2017, there were two simultaneous fires and one of them is thought to have been deliberately lit. And there are strong suspicions that last year’s fire was deliberately lit too.   I appreciate that the adventure park is on private land and John McVicar can do what he wants with it. But when I heard about the pines going back in and then heard about sections in this new housing development near the bike park selling like hot cakes, and how eventually there’ll be 430 new homes there, I wondered whether we've learned anything from those two big fires. John McVicar is the forest owner and he’s saying that, yes, he gets it that some people will think it’s madness that he’s planting pines again - especially after he re-planted them after the first fire in 2017, only to lose them after the second fire seven years later. But he’s comfortable that he’s done enough looking into alternatives and he’s pressing-on with planting the pines this winter. He says he’s had experts look into the idea of planting native trees - which don’t go up in flames at the rate pine trees do - but they found that the site was dry and windswept with rabbits and  goats and, for native trees to survive, they would need years of intensive care. He says leaving the land as it is isn’t an option, either. Because weeds would take off and the experience of mountain biking in a forest would be gone. All of that said - have not we not learnt anything from those fires? Especially the first one. Have we forgotten about the site of those trees going up in smoke? I haven’t. Just like the Christchurch City Council, the Selwyn District Council and ECAN haven’t forgotten. Because, last year, they went to the Government wanting help to stop pines being re-planted in the areas where the fires were. Because the forestry rules, as they stand, allow anyone who has existing rights to have a forestry plantation to replace it like-for-like if it’s damaged or destroyed by fire. The adventure park is a case in point. After 2017, the pines were re-planted there because the landowner had an existing right to plant them. There was nothing that could be done to stop that. This is what these local councils wanted to change. And, because the Government didn’t want to change the rules, we’re stuck with the laws as they stand. Which means the pines are going back.  In my view, what makes this worse than the time they were replaced after the first fire, is that we know there are, eventually, going to be 400-plus more houses near the adventure park. And that’s why I think this is so wrong. The land owner himself knows that some people will think it’s madness too. But how do you feel about it? LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 21 Jul 2025 01:54:18 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-govts-moral-obligation-to-get-rid-of-open-plan-classrooms/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-the-govts-moral-obligation-to-get-rid-of-open-plan-classrooms/ Education Minister Erica Stanford is my politician of the day for announcing that the Government isn't going to be building any more of those terrible open-plan classrooms.   But she’ll be my politician of the year if she goes further than that and finds money to put some walls and doors in the modern learning environment monstrosities that already exist.   In fact, I think the Government is morally obliged to help any state school that wants to get rid of their open-plan classrooms. It’s morally obliged because this disastrous experiment was forced on the schools.    And it will cost a truckload of money but it’s the only option, in my mind.   Unless, of course, there are schools that are perfectly happy teaching kids in barns. They can fill their boots.    But I bet there are a truckload of schools looking at this announcement and thinking “what about us?”  The way Erica Stanford puts it is that she’s had overwhelming feedback that open-plan classrooms aren’t meeting the needs of students.   She says: “While open-plan designs were originally intended to foster collaboration, they have often created challenges for schools, particularly around noise and managing student behaviour.”   Which is a polite way of saying that it was a hair-brained idea that shouldn’t have seen the light of day. And to Erica Stanford and the Government’s credit, they’re not building any more.   Which Rangiora High School principal Bruce Kearney says is great, but he wants to know about all the schools that have already been lumbered with open-plan classrooms.   Some of which have had a gutsful and have spent a lot of their own money turning the barns into old-school classrooms.   Rangiora High School is one of them. They spent $1.5 million. Shirley Boys’ High School in Christchurch spent $800,00. And Avonside Girls' spent $60,000 on screens and acoustic panels because a full fit-out was going to be too expensive for the school to pay for on its own.    Avonside principal Catherine Law says she is “thrilled” to see the move away from open-plan because it’s done nothing for students having a sense of belonging, and it had a really detrimental effect on teaching and learning.   She says year 9 and year 10 kids —the old third formers and fourth formers— are the ones who seem to struggle the most, because they’re the ones getting used to high school.   She says those years especially are the worst times for kids to be expected to try and work in open-plan areas. She says there’s a lot of anxiety with the kids not knowing where they sit and where they belong.   And she thinks that any school that wants to get rid of the open-plan set-up should get funding to do it.   If the experience at Rangiora High is anything to go by, why wouldn't the Government spend some money fixing up this shambles?   Since Rangiora put in the walls and doors, attendance is up by 12%. Which principal Bruce Kearney puts down to “happier teachers, happier kids, and a happier school”.   And he is in no doubt that the Government needs to stump up with the money so all schools that want to benefit from this brilliant move by Erica Stanford, can.   I’m going further than that though.   I think the government is morally obliged to do it. Because even though it wasn't this particular government that forced modern learning environments on schools, it was still the government-of-the-day.   The current administration is now admitting that the experiment has failed. So there is no way it can say that but still expect kids already being taught in these battery farms to put up with it.   And there’s no way it can admit it was a cock-up and expect teachers to keep teaching in these places.  Thu, 17 Jul 2025 01:39:45 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-if-you-see-shane-jones-tell-him-hes-dreaming/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-if-you-see-shane-jones-tell-him-hes-dreaming/ Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones says we live in uncertain times and, because of that, we need to crank up the Marsden Point oil refinery again.   I agree that we live in uncertain times, but I certainly don’t agree that we should pour time and money into something which has had its day.   Shane Jones isn’t the only person talking about it though. The Prime Minister has said too that the Government is considering reopening Marsden Point as part of its plan to strengthen the country’s fuel and energy security.    Because, since it was closed in April 2022, we’ve been importing all our refined fuel.    We’ve also been importing all the bitumen we need for roads as well since the refinery closed. Before then, 70% of the bitumen used in New Zealand for roads was produced at Marsden Point, with 30% imported. Now 100% is imported.   But let’s not forget some of the nonsense that gets trotted-out about the old refinery. Which, once you cut through and dismiss, shows just how crazy it would be to try and get it up and running again.   First up: it wasn’t the previous Labour government that shut it down – the Associate Energy Minister was trotting out that line again this morning.   It was actually shut down by the private company which owned it back in 2022. The company was known as Refining NZ, these days it’s known as Channel Infrastructure.   I think the Government needs to drop this idea of looking into reopening it. Because if the people who know a thing-or-two about running a refinery think it’s a stupid idea, then who am I going to listen to? The people who know what they’re on about?    Of course I am. We all should, including the Government.    Because all this is, is another one of those desperado elements of the coalition agreement between National and NZ First.   Shane Jones is from the north and he’s just doing what any MP would do for their region.    And, before he continues with all this bluster about geopolitical clouds casting doubt on our future fuel supply, he should listen to what Refinery NZ said a year after shutting down the refinery.   They said it would cost billions to reinstate and take at least a couple of years to do it. So why would you? Especially, when you consider who might run the thing.   Because if the private outfit that used to run it wanted out, I don't see anyone else putting their hand up to take over.   What’s more, generating electricity is the future. Refining oil isn’t.  Even one of the union people who fought against the closure thinks we’d be flogging a dead horse trying to reopen it.   Justin Wallace is First Union’s oil and gas co-ordinator and he’s on record as saying that it would be unrealistic to expect the refinery to be cranked into action again.   He has said that although the footprint of the refinery is still there, the company that shut it down dismantled its key components as soon as they were able, and 80-90% of the staff who had worked at the refinery have left.   He says: “They've gone overseas, taken redundancy, or retired. Unless the Government is willing to tax more people to find more money to rebuild it, I think it's a pipe dream.”   Can someone please pass that on to Shane Jones?  Wed, 16 Jul 2025 01:09:06 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-this-is-one-piece-of-rogernomics-that-makes-sense/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-this-is-one-piece-of-rogernomics-that-makes-sense/ How about this for an idea?   Instead of the tax people pay on the first $60,000 of their income going to the government, what if it went into a savings account to pay for healthcare and put food on the table when they retire?   It’s an idea being pushed by former finance minister Sir Roger Douglas and University of Auckland economics professor Robert MacCulloch which, they say, is needed because of the ageing population.   They reckon people could save as much as $21,000 a year, with some of the money going into a health account, some going into a superannuation account, and the rest going into a “rainy day” account.    There are some bits about this that really I like, and I’m not so sure about other aspects.   The thing I like most is that —for pretty much the first-time ever— we would have tax money ringfenced for specific things.   Whether we can describe it as tax money I’m not sure, because it would be money not going to the government but going into these individual bank accounts instead. But we’ll call it tax money.   Sir Roger and Professor MacCulloch have done the numbers and they reckon that —if the government didn’t get its hands on the tax money from the first $60,000 of everyone’s income— on average, people would end up with just over $20,000 in their account each year.  Breaking that down, they say we’d have about $9,500 going into the health bucket, just under $7,400 going into the superannuation bucket, and $4,200 going into the “rainy day” bucket. That’s each year – providing you’re working, of course.   So I like it for the ring-fencing and how we would know exactly how much we have up our sleeve.    And if you do the numbers over the course of someone’s total working life —that’s assuming that they start work at 20 and stop working at 65— the average person that Sir Roger is basing his numbers on could have about $950,000 in their account.   That’s without interest being factored in. So they could retire with more than $1 million in the bank to pay for healthcare and to live off.   And if you’re thinking we’ve got KiwiSaver, so why would we need this extra savings account? If you’re thinking that, chances are you’re well-off enough to afford KiwiSaver.   Because Professor MacCulloch is saying today that many low-income earners just can’t afford KiwiSaver and they would benefit big-time if most of their tax actually went into a savings account. Which makes sense to me.   Dig a little deeper though and Sir Roger Douglas’ old ACT Party ideals start to come through, with him saying today that this approach would give people the freedom to choose whether they get medical treatment, for example, in the public sector or the private sector.   But what if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had all this money and decided to get their hips done privately? That would be boom times for the private hospitals, but what would it mean for the public hospitals?   Possibly less government investment.   And what if a model like this was adopted and we had politicians down the track letting people use the money in these dedicated accounts to pay for first-home deposits and all that carry-on? Which has happened with KiwiSaver.   Sir Roger says he’s been banging on for ages about what he and Professor MacCulloch are calling an “economic car crash”.   They say governments over the years have chosen to ignore the looming health and welfare crisis that we’re heading into, if we haven’t reached that point already.   At the root of it is the ageing population. And they’re saying today that we just can’t keep on keeping on the way we have and the way we are.   And I agree with them. Which is why —even though I’ve got some misgivings about the impact this could have on things like government investment in the healthcare system— overall, I think it’s a brilliant idea.  Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:49:05 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-this-guy-should-never-drive-again-but-hes-going-to/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-this-guy-should-never-drive-again-but-hes-going-to/ We can safely say that someone who rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area is a threat.  We can also safely say that someone who  rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area and runs a red light is a danger. We can also safely say that someone who  rides their motorbike at 110 kph in a 50 kph area, runs a red light and kills two pedestrians is a menace. This is a real-life story. And, upfront, I’m going to say that the person responsible is someone who should never be allowed to ride a motorbike or drive a car again. But under current laws, he can. And he is going to be allowed to.  The person I’m talking about is Mark Kimber. And, in July 2022, he was doing exactly what I’ve just described. On Friday, he was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for the manslaughter of Karen and Geoffrey Boucher. And when he gets out of prison, his licence will be taken off him for three years.   The Bouchers had been out for dinner at a restaurant in Bethlehem, about 8 kilometres from Tauranga, and were crossing the road when they were killed by this guy. Both of them died at the scene.  But here’s where it gets worse. If it could.   Before the crash, he had 11 prior convictions for bad driving. These included careless driving, speeding, drink-driving, dangerous driving, failing to stop and driving while suspended. He also had 70 driving infringements on his record.    What’s more, in the time between the fatal crash and his appearance in court, he was done for speeding twice.  Which tells me that this guy has proven that he will never change and he should never be allowed to have a driver’s licence again.  Tell that to the sentencing judge, though. Who seemed to think that this guy's childhood needed to be taken into account when she was sentencing him for the manslaughter of this innocent couple.  I’m not going to get too bogged down on that side of it. Because it’s the fact that this judge thinks losing his licence for three years is a tough enough penalty.  At the moment, someone in New Zealand can lose their licence indefinitely and can only get it back if they've proved that they've done something about their drinking or drug-taking.  But I don‘t think this guy should ever be allowed to drive again. Because he has shown time and time again that he doesn't give a stuff about anyone else on the road.  If anything, it’s the two speeding offences he committed between the time of the crash and his day in court that ram it home for me.  When someone kills two people like this guy did, you would think that they might be a bit more cautious on the road.   Especially, knowing that're going to be hauled through the court for it.   But Mark Kimber didn’t take his foot of the pedal. And it’s my view that people like him need to be kept off our roads for good. And, instead of “indefinite disqualification” being the strongest punishment we hand out to repeat offenders like him, we should be taking their driver’s licences off them for good.  LISTEN ABOVE Mon, 14 Jul 2025 01:33:41 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-import-gas-or-cross-our-fingers-and-hope/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-import-gas-or-cross-our-fingers-and-hope/ Not as straightforward as it sounds.  That’s pretty much the message coming through loud and clear in this new report which says importing liquified natural gas to make up for our dwindling local supplies is do-able. But.   You’ll remember how, last year, when we had factories closing and people paying through the nose for their electricity, talk turned to what could be done, especially given we are at-risk of not having the gas needed to generate power.   So the Government brought up the idea of importing liquified natural gas.   Fast-forward a few months and four of the big companies have put their heads together, looking into the practicalities of importing gas. The outcome is this report out today effectively saying 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.    First up, the cost. Up to $1 billion. That’s to get the infrastructure needed so that we can bring the gas in and store it.   It could be done cheaper, but the gas would be 25% more expensive.   Secondly, if we’re up for that kind of spend, 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 is 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.   That’s because power generation in New Zealand uses a combination of hydro, gas, and wind.   And in the years when we have plenty of rain and the hydro lakes are full, for example, we might not need to import gas.   So we could go down the route of spending all this money over the next four years —setting ourselves up— and the demand for gas that we might have now not being the same down the track.   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 give it gives you security.   That’s how I see this gas importation business – it would be a back-up. And so-what if it wasn’t needed all the time?  The question facing us now is what do we do now that we have a better idea about the complexities and the cost?   Paul Goodeve, chief executive of the Clarus energy company, thinks we need to ask ourselves whether it’s worth doing without getting obsessed about the cost.   Because as I said earlier, it could be done cheaper —at around $200 million— but that would mean the gas would be 25% more expensive.   I’m no doubt that we have to bite the bullet and press go, and press go on the expensive option.   Because if you or I, or the Greens or whoever, think that this is nuts and we shouldn’t be importing gas and we should all have solar panels on the roof, that’s la-la land.    If you listen to the likes of Greenpeace, they’ll say that importing gas shouldn’t even be an option and we should be going full-bore with solar and wind power generation.   Again, la-la land. Because the reality is, we need a mix of generation options.   And even though it looks like importing liquified gas might not be as straightforward as we might have thought when the government started talking about it last year, what are the alternatives?   Crossing our fingers and hoping for the best? No thanks.    Fri, 11 Jul 2025 02:33:31 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-do-we-have-a-moral-obligation-to-help-flooded-homeowners/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-do-we-have-a-moral-obligation-to-help-flooded-homeowners/ Do you think the Government and councils would be “morally bankrupt” if they stopped paying people out when their properties are so flood-damaged that they can’t live there anymore?   And would you feel the same about people living in areas at risk of flooding being forced to pay more for flood schemes and sea walls because they’re the ones who benefit most?   That’s what a panel of experts is recommending to the Government. But a climate policy expert is saying that would be, you guessed it, “morally bankrupt”. And I agree.   What’s more, I think this approach would let councils off the hook for allowing places to be built in crazy, at-risk locations.    What’s happened, is an independent reference group set up by the Ministry for the Environment has come up with a list of recommendations to help the Government work on some climate adaptation legislation.   Adaptation being what you do when something like climate change and sea-level rise threatens to take-out an area.    This group is made up of economists, people from the banking and insurance sectors, local government and iwi. So a wide range of people. And if I there’s an overarching theme to their advice, it would be this: “You’re on your own buddy.”   And instead of looking to the councils and governments for hand-outs and direction, people should have to decide for themselves if they’re going to stay living where they are.   And if their properties get flooded and there’s no way they can keep on living there, then they shouldn't expect their local council or Wellington to buy them out.   Talk about hardcore. Talk about morally bankrupt.   This group of experts isn’t stopping there, either. It’s also saying that, if you live in an area where there is a risk of flooding and things like sea walls and flood schemes are needed, then you and your neighbours should pay more for those things because you’re the ones who benefit the most.   So, if we apply that to some of the things that have happened here in Canterbury, that would mean people in the Flockton Basin area in Christchurch, paying more for the privilege of living somewhere that used to flood at the drop of a hat.   Remember that? And how the council poured truckloads of money into a pumping system that stopped the water overflowing in the Dudley Creek area and flooding the streets and houses?  The Christchurch City Council spent $49 million on a flood mitigation scheme in Flockton Basin. Elsewhere in town, it spent about $70 million to deal with flooding issues along the Heathcote River. That included buying-out people's houses. Some friends of mine had their place bought out as part of that scheme.   But under these recommendations to the Government, the people in Flockton Basin would be expected to pay more than the rest of us because they’re the ones who are benefiting directly from their streets and houses not flooding anymore.   Also under these recommendations, my mates wouldn’t have their house bought out by the council – even though they can’t live there anymore because it keeps flooding   I would hate to see us take this approach. Which is why agree with climate policy expert, Emeritus Professor Jonathan Boston from Victoria University, who is saying today that leaving people high and not necessarily dry like this would be “morally bankrupt”.  He says: "One of the core responsibilities of any government is to protect its citizens and to deal with natural disasters and so on. That is above almost anything else."   He’s also criticising this group’s recommendation that any changes be phased-in within the next 20 years, saying that the risks and impacts of climate change are going to continue evolving beyond this 20-year deadline.   He says to put an end-date on it is "Morally bankrupt and highly undesirable".   And, as I say, it would let councils off-the-hook. Because for me, if a council gives consent for something to built somewhere, then that same council needs to carry the can if it turns out that that something is somewhere it shouldn’t be.  Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:32:56 Z /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-boris-johnson-fronted-up-to-a-covid-inquiry-chris-hipkins-should-too/ /on-air/christchurch/canterbury-mornings-with-john-macdonald/opinion/john-macdonald-boris-johnson-fronted-up-to-a-covid-inquiry-chris-hipkins-should-too/ Labour leader and former Covid-19 Minister Chris Hipkins thinks phase two of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 response is a platform for conspiracy theorists, and he is non-committal about turning-up to give evidence.   The most committed I’ve heard him so far is saying that he’s working on some written responses. But if that turns out to be the extent of his involvement, then he can forget about being prime minister again.   Because let me remind you of a couple of things.   While it was the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who, generally, fronted the Government’s Covid response. It was Hipkins —as Covid Minister— who drove it behind the scenes.  Secondly, if it was good enough for former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to front up in person to the UK’s Covid inquiry, then it is more than good enough for Chris Hipkins to front up in person to our inquiry.   In December 2023, Boris Johnson spent two days being grilled by the committee of MPs, which had the job of looking into how his government handled the pandemic.  This is the guy who told people they had to isolate at home and then had parties at 10 Downing Street.   This is the guy who disappeared to his country house when Covid was running rampant.   This is the guy who, somehow, lost 5,000 WhatsApp messages from his phone, which couldn’t be used as evidence at the inquiry.  This is the same guy who told the UK inquiry that he was the victim of not being properly informed about the seriousness of Covid.  Boris Johnson is the guy who is widely considered to have cocked-up the response in Britain but who, despite all that, fronted-up to take questions and take the heat over two days.   And it wasn’t pleasant for him. He was grilled. But say what you like about Boris Johnson, at least he fronted up.   From what I’ve seen, at no point did Boris Johnson dismiss the inquiry in Britain as a platform for conspiracy theorists. At no point did Boris Johnson bang-on about the Covid inquiry in Britain creating an opportunity for theatrics from conspiracy theorists. And, at no point, did Boris Johnson hide behind written responses and weasel words.   But that is exactly what Chris Hipkins is doing.  He says he wants to be “cooperative” but “I don’t want to see a whole lot of theatrics. I’m very interested in engaging with them on how we can capture the lessons”. To be fair, Hipkins probably does have a point about the time period covered by phase two of the inquiry and how it, conveniently, leaves out the time NZ First was in coalition with Labour, but he needs to get over that. Just like he needs to get over the fact that, yes, there will be no shortage of conspiracy theorists turning up at the inquiry. But so what? It’s a free world. And we can decide for ourselves how much credence we want to give them.    But Chris Hipkins shouldn’t be free to decide for himself whether he fronts up in person at the Covid inquiry, or not. He was Covid Minister and he has to front.  Wed, 09 Jul 2025 01:05:21 Z