Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald Newstalk ZB

Don’t go thinking that I’m soft on crime or pro-criminal or anything like that. But I think this idea the Government’s got of having a mega prison as part of its investment in the Corrections Service, I think it’s an idea that sucks. 

What it’s doing is it’s reviving a plan to build a mega-prison in Waikato with an 810-bed extension of Waikeria Prison. Which means, all up, there will be 1,865 beds. 

At the moment, the prison can hold 455 inmates. In two years’ time, according to the Government, there will be another 1,400 prisoners there. 

The announcement itself yesterday was a bit of a shambles with the Prime Minister and the Corrections Minister both unable to clarify how much of the increased Corrections investment had already been announced by the previous government. 

But the main thing for me is this idea of a mega prison. 

As soon as I heard it yesterday, I thought of a caller we had the other week when we were talking about the Three Strikes legislation making a comeback. 

I remember this guy saying the answer to fixing the crime problem lies in El Salvador. And what he was talking about there was this new mega-prison they’ve built over there which sounds like a complete nightmare. 

There are 12,000 prisoners there. It’s got space for 40,000. The inmates aren’t allowed to have any visitors and there are no rehabilitation programmes of any sort. Essentially, if you’re a ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key’ type, then you would love it. 

Not that Mark Mitchell and Christopher Luxon are talking about anything like that, of course. But I thought of that call about El Salvador when I heard them making their announcement yesterday. 

And even though our mega prison isn’t going to be anything like that hellhole prison in El Salvador, I don’t think it’s going to make us any safer from crime. 

Even though that’s what the Corrections Minister Mark Mitchell was going on about yesterday when he put out a media release with this headline: “$1.9 billion investment to keep New Zealand safe from crime”. 

Nonsense. It’s not going to keep us safer from crime at all. Especially this mega-prison. That’s just going to be a disaster waiting to happen. And I’ll tell you why. 

If you’re not familiar with Waikeria Prison, it is 16 kilometres south of Te Awamutu. 

So, I think we can safely say that it’s in the wops. And, right now, it can hold between 400 and 500 inmates.  

But you know as much as I know that, at your local prison, it’s not just local crims locked up there. Crims from all around the country are locked up at prisons all over the country. 

And by the time Waikeria becomes this mega-prison in two years’ time —and there’s 18-hundred crims inside— what that will mean is more prisoners further away from the people who keep them connected with the outside world. 

Because all 1800 of them won’t be from Te Awamutu. There’ll be 1800 bad eggs from all over the country. And most of them will have to kiss goodbye to the prospect of any visits from those people who keep them connected with the outside world - their families. 

Now you imagine someone isolated from their families —because of the practicalities of them living miles apart and the impracticalities of travelling to somewhere 16 kilometres south of Te Awamutu— who are they going to turn to? 

Easy. Their fellow prisoners. And what we’ll have is a mega-prison turning offenders into hardened criminals. I guarantee that’s what will happen. 

We won’t be safer from crime at all, as the Government wants us to believe. We’ll be worse off. 

But, you know, the politicians will be able to say they’ve delivered on all their tough-on-crime posturing. But that’ll be about it. 

If they were really serious about trying to reduce crime —or, in particular, increase the chances of someone not re-offending after they’ve been on the inside— they wouldn’t be building a me

It’s time to get nervous. Very nervous. 

I’m talking here about the Government’s big water announcement. It’s starting with Auckland but, right around the country, changes are on the way. 

Auckland is first cab off the rank because it already has an outfit separate from Auckland Council’s other operations running drinking water supply. That’s Watercare. 

But, once it gets the laws it needs, the Government is going  to be rolling this out everywhere. And council controlled organisations - or CCOs - will do the same thing as Watercare. 

And the gist is that if you have a separate outfit running water, it can borrow money specifically for water. It is ringfenced. It isn’t money that disappears into the big black hole of the council coffers. 

It’s National’s arms-length alternative to 3 Waters.   

The reason I say it’s time to get nervous, is that Local Government Minister Simeon Brown was on Newstalk ZB this morning likening the Government’s water reforms to what a previous National government did with the electricity sector back in the day. 

For some reason, I can still remember Max Bradford standing at the lectern promising us that his power reforms were going to mean cheaper electricity for everyone. Cheaper electricity for everyone. And we all know what happened there. 

Which is why, when I saw Simeon Brown, and the Prime Minister and Auckland mayor Wayne Brown on the news last night banging-on about this new deal meaning lower water bill increases, it took me right back to the cheaper electricity promise. 

And the only reason they can promise lower increases now, is because this new thing the Government’s bringing-in is going to enable them to borrow more money specifically for water infrastructure and to take longer to pay it off. 

So maybe ratepayers might be slightly better off now. But not in the long run. 

The immediate increase in their water rates has gone from 25.8 percent to 7.2 percent under the Government’s new model, which will mean more borrowing to pay for water infrastructure and services. 

Which will probably be attractive to some people. For a couple of reasons. 

One: we are so shortsighted, aren’t we, that we only care what we’re paying right now? 

The other reason some people will like this, is that councils don't tend to invest properly in water infrastructure because it’s pretty much out-of-sight, out-of-mind.  

So ratepayer money gets spent instead on flashier stuff. 

The Government’s thinking is that, by allowing councils to borrow more specifically for water infrastructure and pay it back over a longer period of time, then money will get spent fixing the pipes and keeping them up-to-scratch before they start to fall apart. 

Either way, it will mean ratepayers burdened with more debt for longer. 

LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Come Together tribute series continues in Christchurch this week, with a group of superstar Kiwi musicians performing The Joshua Tree.  

Milan Borich, lead singer of the band Pluto, joined John MacDonald on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings to talk about the show, his favourite U2 song of all time, and the intimidation of paying tribute to a band like U2 and those 'hero notes'. 

LISTEN ABOVE 
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Politics Friday John MacDonald was joined by National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb.  

They discussed the recent behaviour from MPs, will complaints be laid?  

Education is getting a facelift, is it time for a combined plan for a long-term approach to education in New Zealand to prevent our young people becoming guinea pigs? 

AUKUS: should New Zealand be seeking to join it or steering clear? 

LISTEN ABOVE   
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One of the cliches people often use when they’re talking about politicians and the way they behave in Parliament is that they behave like “a bunch of kids”. 

I’ve been hearing people say that forever. And, of course, what they’re talking about is the way politicians sometimes lose their rag when they’re debating things in the House. 

But Green Party MP Julie Anne Genter went next level last night, walking across the debating chamber and going-off at National's Matt Doocey. 

She was waving a pamphlet and yelling right into his face. You can see it online, it’s everywhere, thanks to Parliament being filmed all the time these days.  

Now she’s apologised and could face further action. And I think she should face further action. In fact, I don’t know why she hasn’t been suspended by the party, that’s what I think they need to do ASAP. 

And she wouldn’t be the first. You’ll remember that another Green MP is currently suspended. This is Darleen Tana, who the Greens suspended after allegations that she was linked to migrant exploitation at a business her husband runs. 

And Golriz Gharaman, of course, was suspended after the shoplifting accusations started to emerge at the beginning of this year.  

Now you could say there’s a difference here because with Darleen Tana, she’s been linked to potential illegal activity. And Golriz Gharaman was accused of illegal activity and subsequently admitted her guilt.  

Whereas Julie Anne Genter just lost her cool in Parliament last night. Which is putting it mildly. 

And you’re not going to hear me defend what she did but I’m sure, like me, you can appreciate that politicians are pretty highly skilled when it comes to getting under each other's skin. And I know from our dealings on the show, that Matt Doocey is pretty skilled in that department.          

Nevertheless, she lost it. And she should be stood down because of it.  

I see one of her fellow Green MPs, Steve Abel, is saying there was no physical contact and Genter had returned to her seat as soon as the Deputy Speaker —who was running things at the time— asked her to. 

Which is nonsense.  

To say there was no physical contact so nothing to see here, is just ridiculous. Because you imagine if I went out into the office at work with a piece of paper and started waving it around and yelling into someone’s face.   

Do you think my bosses would say to the person ‘oh yeah, but he didn’t actually hit you, there was no physical contact, so stop your whinging’? Of course, they wouldn’t.    

And I think National MP Vanessa Weenink is making a very good point today, saying that if it was her (instead of Matt Doocey) and a male MP had confronted her in the same way as Genter did, then things would be viewed differently. 

And I think, sadly, that would be the case. Because, unless the Greens do suspend her, what they’re doing is they’re telling Matt Doocey that he’s a big boy and he should be able to handle a woman going off at him. 

Now chances are, Julie Anne Genter will be referred to Parliament’s Privileges Committee - which, like all select committees, is made up of MPs from across Parliament and considers complaints made about the way MPs behave. 

Recently, we’ve had the likes of Jan Tinneti and Grant Robertson referred to the Privileges Committee. Back in 2008, Winston Peters was referred for failing to disclose a large donation.  

Speaking of Winston, you might have heard him saying on Newstalk ZB this morning that he doesn't think Julie Anne Genter’s apology cuts it. 

He said: ”I think she just lost the plot.” And her saying “I made you feel unsafe and I’m sorry” just ‘doesn’t cut it’." And I agree.  

So, she is likely to end up in front of the Privileges Committee, providing there’s a complaint from another MP about what she got up to last night. But that’s not enough, as far as I’m concerned. 

What needs