True crime investigations from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Veteran legal affairs journalist Bill Rankin takes you inside the courtroom to break down the story and the criminal justice system. This award-winning series investigates Georgia’s most important cases with fact-based reporting. Season 10 will focus on the historic indictment of former President Donald Trump in Fulton County, Georgia, led by District Attorney Fani Willis. Co-hosted by senior reporter Tamar Hallerman and editor ...
…
continue reading
Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right
Checked 23h ago
Добавлено три года назад
Контент предоставлен NZME and Newstalk ZB. Весь контент подкастов, включая эпизоды, графику и описания подкастов, загружается и предоставляется непосредственно компанией NZME and Newstalk ZB или ее партнером по платформе подкастов. Если вы считаете, что кто-то использует вашу работу, защищенную авторским правом, без вашего разрешения, вы можете выполнить процедуру, описанную здесь https://ru.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - приложение для подкастов
Работайте офлайн с приложением Player FM !
Работайте офлайн с приложением Player FM !
Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald
Отметить все как (не)прослушанные ...
Manage series 3032727
Контент предоставлен NZME and Newstalk ZB. Весь контент подкастов, включая эпизоды, графику и описания подкастов, загружается и предоставляется непосредственно компанией NZME and Newstalk ZB или ее партнером по платформе подкастов. Если вы считаете, что кто-то использует вашу работу, защищенную авторским правом, без вашего разрешения, вы можете выполнить процедуру, описанную здесь https://ru.player.fm/legal.
Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.
It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.
If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.
With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.
Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.
…
continue reading
It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.
If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.
With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.
Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.
897 эпизодов
Отметить все как (не)прослушанные ...
Manage series 3032727
Контент предоставлен NZME and Newstalk ZB. Весь контент подкастов, включая эпизоды, графику и описания подкастов, загружается и предоставляется непосредственно компанией NZME and Newstalk ZB или ее партнером по платформе подкастов. Если вы считаете, что кто-то использует вашу работу, защищенную авторским правом, без вашего разрешения, вы можете выполнить процедуру, описанную здесь https://ru.player.fm/legal.
Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.
It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.
If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.
With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.
Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.
…
continue reading
It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.
If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.
With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.
Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.
897 эпизодов
Semua episod
×I like to think that I care about the climate and climate change. Well, I know I care. But, like most of us —if I’m really honest— I’m all a bit token on it. Which might be why I’ve got absolutely no problem with Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones taking on the big banks for refusing to lend money to the fossil fuel industry. I’m not like some people who I actually know —friends of mine— who are deeply committed to trying to do something about climate change. And it shows through the way they live their lives. I go along with the recycling and all that, but that’s about it. If I was more of an eco-warrior, maybe I’d be ripping into Shane Jones for threatening the banks with a private members bill which —I’ll admit— could set quite a precedent. Because if Parliament forces banks to do business with the fossil fuel industry, what could be next? And if I was more of an eco-warrior, maybe I’d be jumping to the defence of the banks and saying that they have every right to decide who they do and don’t do business with. Which, technically, they do. But, despite all the things the fossil fuel industry gets accused of, it is not an illegal operation. Which is why Shane Jones is planning this intervention to force banks to drop their “woke” approach and to stop treating people who own petrol stations, for example, like second-class citizens. There’s similar talk across the Tasman. Peter Dutton —the opposition leader who could very well be prime minister in a few months in Australia— is saying the exact same thing as Shane Jones. Which I agree with. If you’re running a perfectly legitimate business, then banks shouldn’t be allowed to close their doors to you. Where this has all come from is a thing called the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is a global thing that banks around the world have signed up to. It’s voluntary, but a pretty good sell job has been done on it, obviously. Because all up, there are 136 banks around the world involved. 136 banks in 44 countries with assets worth about $NZD100 trillion. The purpose of the alliance is to get banks to lend money to businesses and industries that align with the idea or the goal of having net zero emissions by 2050. So you can see why the banks here have been pulling the pin on lending money to petrol stations. Because petrol is "bad" and doesn’t do much for achieving your net zero emissions by 2050. And I’m perfectly happy if the banks want to be part of this. Good on them. I’m perfectly happy if they want all their mobile mortgage managers to run around the place in EVs because that would align with zero emissions. Go for it. I’m perfectly happy too for the banks to give all their staff free bus passes – although it would be us customers who would end up paying for it. What else? Solar panels at all branches? Yep, go for that too. But turn your nose up at petrol station owners and the general fossil fuel industry? No thanks. Because, whether the banks like it or not, they are legitimate businesses - just as legitimate as any other sector. And what the banks are doing is wrong. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
1 Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayor on his campaign plans for the next election, alcohol bylaws, speed limits, GP shortage 9:23
Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is in campaign mode after confirmation he's seeking a second term in October's elections. He'll battle Councillor Sara Templeton for the top job, the only other contender so far. In his first catch up of 2025, he discussed his motivations with John MacDonald, as well as thoughts on alcohol bylaws, changing speed limits, and the lack of GPs in the area. He’s prepared to talk to the new Health Minister about Canterbury's GP shortage. Victoria University research has found half of family doctors in the region have no room for new patients. It's worse in south Canterbury, and 59% of GPs have closed their books. Phil Mauger told MacDonald he'll talk with Simeon Brown about potential solutions. He says there's more people in Christchurch than ever, meaning the load is greater on general practices. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
Generally speaking, when something isn’t making you any money, you try to get rid of it. That’s in business, especially. And it looks like that’s the approach National might want to take with state assets too. Christopher Luxon says he’s open to it, and I am too. To a point. And maybe not in the way Christopher Luxon is thinking. The Prime Minister is saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he’s willing to take it to the next election. But let’s be honest, he’s more than just open to it. Especially when you hear him saying things about “recycling” assets making good sense if you’re not getting an adequate return on your capital. But when I say I’m open to the Government selling-off some of its assets —or our assets— the approach I would want to see taken is a bit different from what most people think of when they hear talk about governments selling assets. Anyone who opposes selling public assets —and these can be assets that are owned by the government but also owned by other outfits like local councils— argue that once something is sold you can’t get it back. Which I get. It’s like finding yourself in a bit of financial strife and selling an old heirloom or something precious to you because you need the money. And then, down the track, you really regret it. Once something’s gone, it’s gone. Which is how some people will be feeling about the PM saying that state asset sales are not on the agenda this term - but he’s open to it and willing to take it to the next election. And he seems to be up for asset sale - like his predecessor, Sir John Key, who said on Newstalk ZB this morning that, if he needed urgent health care today, he wouldn't give two hoots about who owned the bricks and mortar. And maybe that’s an easy thing for someone with plenty of money behind them to say. But if you put that aside, he’s actually spot on. If something happened to you today, all you would care about is getting the treatment you needed. And, if the government is going to down the track of selling assets, this is what it should focus on. It should be trying to find buyers for all of our hospital buildings. It should be trying to find buyers for all of our state school buildings. It should be selling all of the things that actually suck money away from the key public services that are provided inside those buildings. Because the challenge when it comes to selling anything, is finding buyers. The Christchurch City Council discovered that a few years back when it wanted to sell City Care because it wasn’t making it any money. But I bet that if we put all of our hospitals and schools up for sale —I’m talking here about the bricks and mortar— I reckon the Government would have no problem finding buyers. As former Labour and ACT party politician Richard Prebble puts it in the NZ Herald today: "If we want to be a first world country, then are we making the best use of the Government’s half a trillion dollars plus worth of assets?” And I would argue that owning the bricks and mortar that Sir John Key talked about isn’t the best use of government capital. Owning hospital buildings isn't, nor is owning school buildings. Because who cares who owns the buildings? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
What do you think someone in their 40s is thinking about right now? I can think of a few things, and I bet it’s not retirement. Even though we’re being told today that that’s what someone in their 40s should be thinking about. But I bet they’re not. I reckon if someone is in their 40s and they’re a parent with kids at school, they’ll be cursing about all the back-to-school costs. But they’ll probably also be loving the fact that the holidays are pretty much over. What else might people in their 40s be thinking about right now? Maybe, with it being January, they might be thinking about trying to get a new job this year. Some of them will be thinking about getting a job full-stop. If they’re in their 40s and they run a business, they’ll probably be hoping they can get through this year just like they got through last year. They might even be looking at their mates who have a job and get paid a salary and be thinking that working for someone else doesn’t actually look that bad after all. There will be people in their 40s dealing with relationship break-ups. Some will be moving on to the next one, blending families and all of that. They’re just some of the things that a person in their 40s might be thinking about right now. But do you think anyone in their 40s is thinking about their retirement? In fact, not just thinking about it, actually planning for it. How likely do you reckon that is? Very unlikely. But apparently they should be. That’s according to the author of a new report out today which says “oh you know how we’ve been telling you that you need to have a million bucks in the bank if you want to have a comfortable retirement? Well, you might not need that much after all.” In fact, you might even get away with having just $120,000 in the bank. That’s the “no frills” version of retirement, by the way. If you want the frills, you’re going to need a million. So where’s this thing today about young people proactively planning and preparing for their golden years coming from? It’s coming from Massey University’s financial education and research centre, which has looked at spending by people who are retired now, and they've worked out that $120,000 in the bank could be enough for a comfortable “no frills” retirement. They’ve found that retirees in urban areas spend less than retirees in provincial areas. But they pretty much put that down to things being more expensive in provincial areas and people having to drive more in provincial areas. But even though they’re saying that $120,000 might do it instead of a million, they say that some other form of income after the age of 65 is needed for a really comfortable retirement. And this is what Associate Professor Claire Matthews wants people in their 40s to be thinking about right now. She says the standard of living most people hope to have when they retire requires more than just NZ Super, and that requires long-term thinking and planning. But I think that kind of talk is unrealistic for the reasons I mentioned earlier. People in their 40s have got enough on their plate without thinking about retirement. Granted, we are light years ahead from where we were when I began my working life, now that we have KiwiSaver. In fact, I reckon people closer to my age —I’m 56— I reckon a lot of us are pretty distracted with life too and retirement isn’t really on our radar. Sure, I’m doing the KiwiSaver contributions each fortnight, but that’s it. And I’ll be totally honest with you, when it comes to my retirement, I’m probably preferring not to think about it. Which I know is pretty reckless. But it’s for the exact same reasons why I think someone in their 40s today won’t be giving too much thought to how life is going to be once they hit 65. It’s called life. And doing what you have to do in the here and now. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
Do you know what the most pointless piece of road safety advice is? Drive to the conditions. I get it and it’s well-meaning. But it’s pointless. A waste of breath. Because some people are incapable of doing it. And it would seem from some of the reports in the past 24 hours about those two buses which went off the road yesterday on the Twizel-Tekapo highway after hitting black ice, that perhaps the drivers of those buses knew nothing about how you should be driving in sub-zero temperatures. So they either didn’t know how to drive to the conditions - or just didn’t care. This isn’t a one-off, either, by the way, and, I reckon the time has come for us to stop mucking around with this “drive to the conditions” nonsense and do one of two things. We either follow the lead of some European countries and make winter tyres mandatory on all vehicles. Or, as soon as we know temperatures are going to be sub-zero where there’s a state highway, we close the road. We don’t wait around until the road is frozen over and it’s too late. I see the guy in charge of the bus company involved in yesterday’s crashes is disputing any suggestion that they were going too fast. He would say that, though, wouldn’t he? It’s not like he’s going to come out and say ‘oh yeah, those muppets I pay to drive my buses have got no idea about driving to the conditions’. So, instead of relying on some bus company owner in Auckland, I’m going to give more credence to the eyewitness account of a chap by the name of Tony McClelland, who was on the road at the time. I bet he isn’t buying what the bus company guy is saying, either. He was driving from Christchurch to Omarama. And he’s been in the news saying that the road conditions on that highway yesterday morning were the worst he’s ever seen. He hit black ice himself near Tekapo Airport, nearly lost control of his van and almost ended up in a ditch. So he called the police and asked them to close the road. Here’s a quote from what he’s saying: “You're looking at minus-5, minus-4 degrees, foggy conditions - that State Highway should have been closed. No doubt and it wasn't. There's just a big black sign up by the airfield saying 'dangerous conditions, black ice'. That's how people die." Thankfully, no one did die. One person has serious injuries and two others have moderate injuries. And thank goodness those buses ended-up where they did - off the road and not in the middle of it. But back to Tony McLelland. Once he’d called the cops, asking them to close the road, he thought about turning back but decided to press-on. But he stuck to 60kph. And it wasn’t long after that that he saw these two buses “flying out of the fog”. That’s what he’s saying. And here’s how he describes what he saw. "They were not doing 60. They were not doing 80. They were doing at least 100, probably a little bit more." And he obviously drives that road quite a bit, because he says it’s not uncommon to see drivers hoofing along at 100 kph during winter, when there’s black ice on the road. But this sort of nutbar driving happens everywhere. Less than two weeks ago, police caught a driver doing 134 kph in icy, foggy conditions on the road to Aoraki/Mt Cook - with the whole family on board. This was on State Highway 80. It was around minus-3. The day after that, the police came out with a warning, saying the number of people driving at “horrendous” speeds in winter conditions is appalling. Over a two-week period, 26 people had been caught doing speeds over 120 kph in icy conditions. So what happened yesterday isn’t an isolated one-off. It’s happening on an all-too-regular basis and just telling people to “drive to the conditions” is worthy, but lame. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
If you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - think again. It’s one of many plans that are part of this overall 25-year strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. The big strategy was launched in 2021, which means it’s got about 22 years to run. It’s got a big price tag too, the long-term strategy that is. $1.3 billion. And, as part of this latest action plan, the Government’s going to review how the money is being spent to make sure it’s focused and streamlined to make sure that every dollar being spent is making a difference. As for the goal of eliminating family violence and sexual violence by 2046, I think the harsh reality is that we’ll never eliminate it. But I’m not saying that we shouldn’t bother trying. I’m sure that if we spoke to someone involved in trying to end violence, they would say that the 25-year strategy is “aspirational”. They’d tell us that it’s something to aim for - which is better than the alternative. Which is doing nothing. And I’d agree with that. The question, though, is what you do to try and get somewhere towards eliminating violence. Which is why I said before, if you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - or nothing to do with you - then you need to think again. The obvious thing you can take from that is that we are all potential victims but also instigators of violence. You’ll know as well as I do that it’s not just people in certain parts of town who are at risk. Violence is everywhere. There’s violence in houses with kids' bikes and toys outside. There’s violence in houses where the cops turn up every now and then to have a word. But there’s also violence in houses with beautiful hedging and front gates that only open when someone presses a button. Physical violence, sexual violence, verbal violence, psychological violence. And if it isn’t you who has experienced some or all of those things. There’s a pretty good chance that someone you know has. It might be a friend, a relative, or that really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling. That friend, relative, or really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling could also be the one being violent behind those closed doors. Which is why this plan announced yesterday - and the bigger picture strategy that it's part of - will only achieve something if we do our bit. And when it comes down to it, doing our bit is pretty easy. It isn’t necessarily comfortable or pleasant or convenient. Because, doing our bit to reduce all kinds of violence, requires us to give a damn. It requires us to listen out for those raised voices across the fence. It requires us to do more than just shrug our shoulders and say “oh they’re at it again”. It requires us to run the risk of losing friendships or straining family relationships. Because if someone is picked up for acting violently or aggressively, I bet it must be damn embarrassing. Not to mention the fact that it can be very easy sometimes to convince ourselves that doing something or intervening will only make things worse for the person suffering the violent abuse. You know: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, he’ll just get more fired and up and then she’ll really wear it.” Or: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, there’ll be a rock through our window tonight.” See what I mean? But I genuinely believe that, if this stuff the Government’s going to do has any chance of succeeding, then we need to stop being a nation of scaredy cats. And I’m including myself there. Because there have probably been countless times where I’ve turned a blind eye or considered myself too busy - or any of the millions of excuses we can be very good at coming up with to avoid “getting involved”. “That yelling next door’s been going on for quite some time now - maybe I should poke my head in. But if I don’t get to the supermarket, there’ll be nothing for the lunches.” Driving home late at night. “That young woman back there looked pretty drunk - she probably shouldn’t be out on her own like that. Maybe I should go back and check on her. But I’ve got an early start. Need to get some sleep.” Time and time and time again we come up with excuses not to do anything. And that is what needs to change. For me, that is the one big thing we could all do to really make a difference and to give this 25-year plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence by 2046 some chance of success. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
Even as a scooter rider, I think these motorcyclists who are kicking up a fuss about their ACC levies going through the roof don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s quite possible too that the motorbike guys will think that someone who rides a 2-stroke Vespa isn’t even a real motorcyclist. And they’re free to think that, but even though the ACC levy is going to increase by almost 80% over the next three years, you won’t find me running off to the Human Rights Commission. I’m not joking there either, because that’s exactly what Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand has done. So here are the numbers: in three years’ time the ACC levy for anyone who registers a motorbike will be $532. At the moment, it’s $297. So, yes, a truckload more money. It’s an increase of nearly 80%. And the motorbike people think they’re being unfairly targeted when you consider that the ACC levy for car drivers in that same three-year time period is going to go from $42 a year to $64 for drivers of petrol cars. For EV drivers, the levy will go from $42 a year to $122 a year. So the motorbike people have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, saying it isn’t fair that they’ll be paying more than $800 a year when car drivers will only be paying a maximum of $122 a year. They say it would be much fairer if everyone just paid a flat rate of $140, but I disagree. In their complaint to the Human Rights Commission, they say that as a minority group of New Zealand citizens, motorcyclists are being unfairly singled-out and the increases will particularly affect people on low incomes who rely on motorbikes as an affordable form of transport. Here’s a quote from their submission: “Although motorcyclists only account for only 0.26 percent of all ACC accident claims, they bear a disproportionately high financial burden.” So you look at that stat, and it could be very easy to think that they have a good point. If so few ACC claims are being made by motorcyclists, why are they paying way more than other people on the road? But it’s not about the number of crashes - it’s about the severity of the injuries. For me, it comes down to the fact that —when you’re on the road on two wheels— you are at so much more risk. And I don’t have a stat to back this up but I bet you that when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash, chances are they require a lot more medical care than someone in a car. That’s what ACC itself says too – it says the cost to the country of motorcycle accidents is extremely expensive. This is because of the kinds of injuries someone can get if they’re on a motorbike and get involved in a crash. And, unfortunately, a lot of the time those crashes aren’t caused by the motorcyclists themselves, they’re caused by muppets in cars and other vehicles. If you’ve ever ridden a motorbike or a scooter, you’ll know how key it is to make sure that other drivers have seen you. Example: when you’re heading down the road on your motorbike and there’s a car approaching an intersection on your left. You can never be sure they’ve seen you unless you catch their eye. I do it every time, try to make sure I catch their eye. Always have. Because, quite often, what I find is that the car driver at the intersection is actually looking beyond you. They’re looking out for larger vehicles and they can completely miss you. Not that us motorbike and scooter riders are completely innocent, either. I don’t know how many times I’ve given into the temptation —when traffic’s at a standstill— to undertake, and ride through the space to the left of the built-up traffic. I don’t know how many times I’ve said to myself I’m never doing that again and I have done it again. Nevertheless, riding a motorbike or a motor scooter is not compulsory. It is a choice. It is a choice that motorcyclists make knowing full well that riding on two-wheels is way riskier than riding on two wheels. And, because we acknowledge that risk, we also need to accept that if we come to grief, chances are we’re going to need more support from the health system. And, because of that, we have no reason to complain about paying higher ACC levies than other road users. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
A regular weekly contributor to the show up until last year, Gerry Brownlee is finishing his first full year as Speaker of the House. Brownlee joined John MacDonald to reflect on his year amid the continuing drama in Parliament. He says has been a very democratic year in the chamber. When elected to the position this time last year, Brownlee said it was his job to protect MPs rights to speak freely. He says he feels he's done this job well, ensuring debate in the house was well facilitated. Brownlee says he's been particularly liberal in allowing MPs to express themselves –particularly in a parliament where there is a balanced opposition and Government. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
When Finance Minister Nicola Willis said “I have delivered” yesterday —after announcing the Government’s so-called plan for the Cook Strait ferries— what she really meant was: “I’ve had a gutsful of this lot fighting over it and I’m out.” She was throwing her arms in the air because she’s had enough of NZ First and ACT squabbling over what should happen with the ferries, and so she went to the Prime Minister and said, “I’m done”. She said to Christopher Luxon, “if Winston thinks he can do better, then let him do it”. And, as of yesterday, he is apparently going to do it in his new role as Minister of Rail. That’s my theory on how things have played out behind the scenes in the lead-up to yesterday, but the evidence is there. Because it’s obvious, isn’t it, that there’s been a spat in Cabinet. Which is why they’ve managed to do absolutely nothing over the past 12 months. They’ve been squabbling over whether they should get ferries capable of transporting trains. And they’ve been squabbling over whether the ferry service should continue to be a government-run thing or whether it should be handed over to the private sector, which is what David Seymour wants. He thinks Bluebridge runs a pretty good operation, so why couldn't another private operator do the same? But, either way, I reckon even died-in-the-wool National supporters can’t deny that this ferry thing has turned into a real cluster, and what happened yesterday was a circus. And everyone sitting around that Cabinet table should be hanging their heads in shame. The big negotiators. The big talkers. It’s come to nothing and it’s going to be the second half of next year before we have any idea what’s going to happen, and 2029 before we see any new ferries. And that’s probably being pretty optimistic. It was Winston Peters who got the iRex project underway in the first place when he was in government with Labour between 2017 and 2020. On Newstalk this morning he admitted that he’s even embarrassed by how it’s all played out, but he's the guy who's going to fix, apparently. There was no information forthcoming yesterday about the trains being capable of carrying trains or not. Nothing about the cost. And Winston Peters wasn’t budging on that when he spoke on radio today, either. "Help is on its way," is all he would say. All this bravado a year after Nicola Willis pulled the plug on the iRex project, saying it had gone way over budget and she was going to come up with a cheaper alternative. Remember her banging on about getting a Toyota Corolla inter-island ferry service, instead of the Ferrari service she said the iRex project had become? Well, it was all talk. We don’t even have a Toyota Corolla. We’ve got a Hillman Hunter - and that’s being kind to the clapped out ferries that are servicing Cook Strait at the moment. It’s also being unkind to Hillman Hunters. And we will be using the Hillman Hunters until at least 2029 because of the Government's inaction. What a circus. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
A firm answer from Christchurch's mayor on whether the Cathedral restoration levy should go into reducing a rates increase. Households have paid $6.52 each year since 2018. Halswell councillor Andrei Moore wants it used to help a reduce a 8.4% rates increase, while the rebuild is indefinitely paused. Mayor Phil Mauger told John MacDonald he believes the money should stay where it is. He says interest will accrue and be ready for when the Cathedral restoration continues. People can submit feedback on the draft annual plan in February. LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
I have never had a problem with greyhound racing so you’re not going to hear me singing the Government’s praises for banning the sport. But I am scratching my head. Because there are so many things about this move by the coalition that just don’t make sense to me. On one hand, the Government wants more people working, but it’s happy to see about 1,000 private sector jobs go down the gurgler within two years. It wants to grow the economy, but it’s happy to say goodbye to the $160 million the sport generates every year. The Government wants to rescue the greyhounds, but it’s happy for livestock to be stuck in a crate and shipped overseas. Not to mention the fact that horse racing and rodeos are fine, but dogs chasing a lure around the racetrack is a no-no. Here’s another one: the Government wants to rescue the dogs, but is happy to spend less on school lunches. See what I mean? It makes absolutely no sense to me. And that’s not just because I’ve never been concerned about greyhound racing. What this is, is a left-field move by a right-leaning government which I thought Winston Peters did a pretty good job of announcing yesterday. Considering he’s like me and doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with the sport. Here’s what he said to a select committee earlier this year: "Dogs love racing. Just like horses. Three o'clock in the morning, everybody's quiet and they're out there having a race in the paddock. "So before we rush off, there are certain instinctive things that animals like, and one of them they will do whether you're going to organise the race or not." So with so many unanswered questions, this is when the conspiracy theories start to emerge. Especially when you consider that the greyhound racing people themselves had just one hour’s notice before yesterday’s announcement. So here are a couple of my theories: Winston Peters has done a deal with Cabinet to get more government money pumped into the horse racing industry, in exchange for banning dog racing. The only potential fly in the ointment with that theory is that some people think this greyhound thing is the so-called thin edge of the wedge and horse racing will be next on the chopping block. But as long as Winston Peters is breathing, I don’t think we’ll see that happening. And that could be a long time because Winston is the Keith Richards of New Zealand politics, isn’t he? Another theory of mine as to why this all came so quickly and out of the blue, is that the Government wanted something to keep the greenies happy when it looks like its new ferries aren’t going to be capable of carrying trains. That might be stretching it a bit, but see what I mean? When a government does something like this, which doesn’t really marry-up to its general way of thinking, we all start to wonder what’s really behind it. The reaction so far has been at both ends of the spectrum, as you would expect. The greyhound racing people say they are devastated. The SPCA people say they’re ecstatic. Edward Rennell is chief executive of Greyhound Racing New Zealand. He got the phone call 45 minutes before yesterday’s announcement. He says the greyhound racing of today is different to the greyhound racing of yesterday. Yes, 13 dogs died last race season from injuries, but, according to the saving animals people themselves, more racing horses die each year. And yes, greyhounds probably do have a much more comfortable life when they’re re-homed with humans than they do when they’re racing. But their animals for goodness sake. And I can’t help feeling that the Government has taken its eye off the ball with this decision. Especially a government that bangs-on all the time about dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, growing the economy, getting more people into work and sorting out the education system. It makes absolutely no sense to me. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
Surely this is the final straw for Gloriavale. Or, more to the point, surely it’s the final straw for the Government. Because it is absolutely shameful that it still exists. This final straw, by the way, is the Court of Appeal ruling announced yesterday that the BNZ has every right to close the community’s bank accounts. For the simple reason that it doesn’t want to do business with them anymore. And good on the Court of Appeal. More to the point, good on BNZ, which could turn out to be the outfit which does the most for those poor sods stuck there. It will probably also force the hand of all those businesses on the West Coast that have been quite happy to turn a blind eye, as long as they get to do business with them and make a crust. Because aside from being a place where kids are treated like slaves, where women are treated like sex slaves and lord knows what else, it is also a large business. A large financial entity which includes two trusts and 13 companies. And there are many people who have done alright out of Gloriavale. They’ve made money servicing their property and everything else that needs doing at a place like that. But for how much longer? The lawyer representing the people who have escaped the place and who took Gloriavale to court for ripping them off with all the crazy work hours is saying today that Gloriavale should be shut down. He’s putting responsibility for that on the Government. I would like nothing more than for that to happen, but I’m not sure whether the Government actually has any powers to do that. But either way, this has to be one of this country’s greatest embarrassments. That, for years now, concerns about Gloriavale have been raised and —aside from the odd court case where creeps who have committed sex crimes have been hauled before the courts— Gloriavale’s been allowed to just keep on keeping-on. What happened, which led to yesterday’s ruling, is BNZ told Gloriavale that it wanted to close all of its accounts – citing its human rights policy. Gloriavale said ‘you can’t do that’, claiming that if they lost their bank accounts, their whole future would be in jeopardy. So they took the bank to the High Court and managed to get an interim injunction which forced BNZ to keep the accounts open. The idea was that there would be a hearing down the track to decide whether BNZ would be in breach of its contract with Gloriavale if it closed the accounts. But the BNZ wasn't going to sit around and wait for that to happen, and it went to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the case and released its finding yesterday that BNZ has every right to choose who it does and doesn’t do business with. The fact that it has a human rights policy makes it pretty clear, I reckon. Although I bet there will be some people going through BNZ’s list of other clients to see if it’s following its human rights policy to the letter and isn't just singling-out Gloriavale. But I wouldn’t even care if the BNZ was singling-out Gloriavale because that place needs to go. And if shutting down its bank accounts is one way to force it out of existence, then bring it on. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
1 John MacDonald: On why the government should be hitting the brakes on controversial bootcamps 5:02
The minute the defence force said it didn’t want a bar of the new youth boot camps, the Government should have put the brakes on then and there. It didn’t, though, because it had talked a tough game before the election and like hell it was going to back away from that promise now. But it should have. So, let’s give the Government another chance and let’s see if it’s prepared to stop being so gung-ho now that we know that two of the kids who did a runner from the programme were involved in what appears to be some sort of car-jacking attempt at the weekend. I don’t hold out much hope. But, at the very least, the Government should be pressing pause. It should be pressing pause until it’s worked out whether this is a full-on residential programme or whether it’s still happy to have the kids go in-house for a bit and then send them back to the lives they came from in the first place. Because why would you do that? It should be pressing pause to see if it can get the military involved on a much greater scale. The scale that it talked about before getting into government - without actually talking to the military. It should be pressing pause until it gets Oranga Tamariki properly on-board. Because, let’s face it, boot camps are the last thing OT wants to be involved with. I know that because I have some familiarity with OrangaTamariki and I know that sending kids to boot camps goes completely against its DNA. It should also be pressing pause so that it can get advice from actual experts in this field. Instead of pressing on blindly with something that it knew it could get votes for - but, at this point anyway, looks like something doomed to fail. Not that Phil O’Reilly feels that way. You’ll know him from his time with Business New Zealand. But he was also a member of the welfare advisory group that was in place during the last version of the boot camps under John Key’s government. He said on Newstalk ZB this morning that boot camps work and he hopes the Government doesn't lose its nerve. If you’re thinking ‘hold on a minute, these two kids weren’tactually under lock and key because they’d finished what’s called the “facility-based” part of the programe and were in family or community placements, and so why do you want to write-off the boot camps because of that?’ If you’re thinking that, then doesn’t the fact that they did this when they were away from the boot camp show you that this idea doesn’t work? Since these two did a runner, and since a third young person who was involved in the programme died in a car crash, the Government has been at great pains to point out that other kids involved have got back into education or found work. Which is great. Don’t get me wrong. But it’s not enough to convince me that the Government should just keep on keeping on without, at the very least, talking to a few experts, trying to get the military more involved, and deciding whether this “community placement” part of the programme is actually a good idea. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
I’ve been reading a report the OECD released this morning, and it’s occurred to me that, if we want our businesses to survive, there is a very simple thing we could or should be doing to help. When I say we, I’m meaning the government upfront. But, for this to happen, I think we’d all pretty much have to agree to it as well. That’s because it would mean giving businesses a better deal on something that all of us have to pay for —whether we own a business or not— and that’s electricity. So this report I’m talking about is the OECD’s 2024 economic outlook. There was one earlier in the year and Volume 2 came out at 5 o’clock this morning. It assesses how things are in all of its member countries and one of the key messages that comes through loud and clear is that, if we want to see better economic times here in New Zealand, we need to do something about the electricity market. You’ll remember how earlier in the year some manufacturing plants shut their doors when wholesale electricity prices went up so much that they were seven times higher than what they’d been 12 months earlier. This report seems to focus on futures electricity prices – or “forward prices” as they’re also known. Which is when electricity users can sign-up for a set price for their electricity for a certain period of time. The idea being that big businesses especially know what their power bills are going to be, and they don’t get surprised or caught out by “spot prices” - which are the prices charged for electricity that vary from hour to hour. So the futures market is a bit like fixing your home mortgage instead of having it on a floating rate. Interestingly, this OECD report talks about futures electricity prices being a problem but my recollection of the manufacturing closures this year is that they were forced by spot price increases. Either way, the OECD says electricity prices are a significant problem – which is why I think all businesses, big and small, should get government subsidies for their electricity bills. In fact, one of the headlines in the report —in bold— says it is essential to tackle high electricity prices. Here’s a direct quote, and bear in mind that these comments are specific to New Zealand. The report says: “High futures electricity prices for industry will exacerbate productivity problems by weakening business investment, especially in the green and digital transitions, as electricity is a core input for both.” “The electricity regulators and the government have launched reviews of the electricity market. Despite previous reforms to improve competition, electricity futures prices are high and above the threshold considered sustainable for the economy in the long run.” The OECD report also says: “These reviews should re-examine separating the generation and retail operations of large electricity companies to boost competition in the futures market and provide industry with more hedging options.” For me, what it says there about separating the power generation and power selling arms of the big power companies is a no-brainer. And Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones has already been making noises about that. But can you imagine how long that is going to take? Which is why I think that, in the more immediate term, we should all be subsidising businesses for what they pay in power. We should be doing that because businesses are vital for the economy. We should be doing it because businesses keep our smaller communities, especially, alive. When small-town businesses go, so do the people. And not just for the big outfits, we should be subsidising the power costs for every business. More than 90% of all businesses in New Zealand are small-to-medium enterprises. Now I know the way the tax system works, businesses already get subsidised power in some respects, being able to claim back the GST they pay on their power bills. But I don’t think that goes far enough. And I know that business is all about the free market and making a go of things on your own, but when you’ve got the OECD saying today that power prices have been and will continue to be an impediment to economic growth in this country, then you have to listen to that. More importantly, you have to do something about it. Which is why I would be more than happy for all businesses in New Zealand to have cheaper power bills ASAP through electricity subsidies. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
1 Politics Friday with Megan Woods and Matt Doocey: Electricity, police targets, Ayesha Verrall's comment 20:31
Today on Politics Friday, National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Megan Woods joined John MacDonald to dig into this week’s political news. Electricity prices are still rising – would ensuring businesses get a lower rate keep them from going out of business? Will National actually miss their police force target, or is it achievable in the 12 months remaining? And how about Ayesha Verrall’s ‘cooking the books’ comment against Health Commissioner Lester Levy? LISTEN ABOVE See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.…
Добро пожаловать в Player FM!
Player FM сканирует Интернет в поисках высококачественных подкастов, чтобы вы могли наслаждаться ими прямо сейчас. Это лучшее приложение для подкастов, которое работает на Android, iPhone и веб-странице. Зарегистрируйтесь, чтобы синхронизировать подписки на разных устройствах.