Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald Newstalk ZB

I could be wrong. But I reckon most of us wouldn’t have done what Transpower wanted us to do to try and avoid power cuts. 

I could be wrong. You may have dutifully done what Transpower wanted you to do. Which was to use as little power as possible by not charging your phone and not having heaters and lights on in rooms you’re not using between 7am and 9am today. 

But I reckon most people would’ve either forgotten, or just thought everybody else would be doing it so they wouldn’t need to. And why’s that, do you think? 

Well, it’s because New Zealand is not what ACT leader David Seymour says we’re becoming with things like this warning about power cuts. 

He’s saying that it’s all “third world stuff”. But, I think that’s overboard. Because, if we were Third World, we would have heard that warning from Transpower last night and every one of us would’ve done exactly what they wanted us to do. 

Because, if we were Third World, power cuts would be a regular thing. So, as per, I think David Seymour is exaggerating, a little.  

As it turned out, there weren’t any power cuts. But, listening to the head of Transpower on Newstalk ZB, we were cutting things a bit fine. 

I won’t get into megawatt this and megawatt that - for two reasons. One: I’d be running the risk of sounding like I’m pretending to know what I’m talking about. When I don’t. So I’ll put it out there right now - I am not an electricity expert. 

The other reason I won’t start throwing around megawatts is because I think your eyes would glaze over faster than mine. When all we need to worry about, is that this early in the year they’re talking about power cuts and telling us not to put our phones on charge.    

And, even though I think David Seymour’s talk about us being Third World is nonsense, don’t think for a minute that I think this is good enough. It’s not. 

Because here we are just over a week into May and already we’re being told that to save power to prevent blackouts.  

When I heard the head of Transpower saying that this weather is unseasonably cold, I questioned that a little bit. But, I’ve looked up some of the stats, and it is a bit older than usual. Nevertheless, I don’t think that’s enough of an excuse. 

Because the real excuse for what’s happened, is that we have continually turned a blind eye when it comes to investing and maintaining our electricity infrastructure. 

Back in February, Transpower announced a plan to spend $400 million to strengthen the nationwide electricity system. Or the grid, as it’s known. 

They also want to spend another $100 million upgrading the Cook Strait Cable. 

Don't get too excited. Because, even though they announced it in February, they’re now doing the whole consultation thing with people in the energy sector. So that’ll take yonks.  

And, I don't know about you, but I reckon that spending $400 million strengthening the national grid and $100 million upgrading the Cook Strait Cable sounds like chicken feed. 

Especially, when you consider how electricity usage is expected to go through the roof over the next few years.  

Transpower reckons that by 2050, electricity demand or usage will have increased by 70 percent, compared to what it is now. Which is why I think Transpower is just tinkering at the edges with this $500 million it wants to spend on the grid and the cable upgrade. 

We are going to have to spend truckloads more than that if we are going to remotely cope with a 70 percent increase in demand for electricity. 

But we won’t, of course. Going by how we’ve done things up until now. Which is to under-invest and hope for the best. 

To under-invest and then, when things look like they might go pear-shaped, to go into panic mode and to tell us not to charge our phones and to turn the heaters and lights off. 

So even though I disagree with David Seymour’s view that the threat of power cuts this morning is T

John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Megan Wood and National’s Matt Doocey to break down this week in Politics Friday. 

This morning’s situation with the power grid sparked a lot of chatter, are we really in a third world state as David Seymour claims?  

Megan Woods revealed that support for the families impacted by the mosque attack will be cut this afternoon, is this really the time? 

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

David Seymour is a muppet. I bet that’s what the Prime Minister was thinking yesterday when reporters were asking him if he agreed with Seymour’s view that sushi is “woke”. 

The ACT leader and the Associate Education Minister made the claim about sushi after he’d announced that the Government is revamping the school lunches programme by getting back to the basics, like sandwiches and fruit, and saving about $100 million in the process. 

So out with the butter chicken and the hot meals, and in with the sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and I think the Government is making a big mistake. And I’ll tell you why. 

I think it’s making a big mistake because I’m listening to what the people who really know a thing or two about this are saying. The people at the coalface. The principals and the teachers.  

I saw one principal on the news last night saying it might have been useful if David Seymour had spoken to them first about what was and wasn’t working before making these changes. 

Another —Lianne Webb, Principal of Aorere College in Papatoetoe— says, for some students the lunch is their only meal of the day. 

Which kind of stops me in my tracks because I’m as old school and I tend to think that if I grew up eating luncheon roll sandwiches for lunch when I was at school, why can’t other kids? 

But then, on the other hand, if these lunches are the only meals some kids are getting then a sandwich and an apple at lunchtime isn’t going to cut it, is it?  

And I think what this all comes down to, is whether it is the job of the Government to feed kids full-stop, or just provide them with something to eat at lunchtime when they’re at school - or pre-school as well. Because that’s another change the Government is making. They’re also including some early childhood centres in the programme. 

So, is it a school lunch programme? Or is it a ‘make sure these kids at least get something to eat’ programme? And, in my mind, even though I’m old school and even though a hot meal might seem over the top to most of us, I think we have to listen to what the schools are saying and accept that this is more than just feeding kids at lunchtime.     

As for the woke sushi thing, that all started with a social media post by the ACT Party which said the Government will be doing more with less money to feed kids fruit and sandwiches, not "woke food like quinoa and sushi.”  

And Seymour repeated it when he was talking to journalists at Parliament. 

And, of course, what happened next was they all chased down the Prime Minister to see if he agreed with Seymour that sushi is woke. 

Christopher Luxon tried to fob them off, but it was obvious that he thought Seymour had been a muppet. Eventually, though, he gave in and told the reporters that he doesn’t think sushi and quinoa are woke.  

But what David Seymour is missing, when he says that the school lunch programme will be delivering the type of lunch that 75% of kids get from home, is that they’re the ones who go home after school and do have an after-school snack and do have an evening meal. 

The other kids don't, necessarily. And I think that’s it’s appalling the Government is turning its back on these kids - just to save a lousy $107 million. 
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How about this? I found myself agreeing this morning with someone who has been described as a racist dinosaur. To a point. 

This lefty wokester, that some people seem to think I am, actually agrees with this Kings Council lawyer who disagrees with tikanga Māori being compulsory for students doing a law degree at university from next year. 

I agree with someone who has been described as (quote) “a racist dinosaur who should quietly go and die in a corner”. How about that? 

But to a point. That’s the key bit. 

Gary Judd is his name. Or Gary Judd KC to be precise. And what he’s done, is he’s made a formal complaint to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee over this new requirement that’s due to come into force next year. 

Now, for the purposes of this discussion, the general understanding of tikanga Māori is that it’s the way of doing things within Māori society. 

So, it’s about principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge. The customary rules which govern Māori life. Broadly, it’s what’s known as customary law. Law based on customs. As opposed to common law.  

Gary Judd KC says tikanga actually has nothing to do with Common Law. And Winston Peters is an instant fan, saying that forcing law students to study tikanga Māori is just what he calls "woke indoctrination". 

He says: “Law students should not be force-fed this kind of woke indoctrination from some culture warrior’s slanted version of what tikanga means.” 

Which is kind of what Gary Judd KC is saying too. Although, the complaint he’s made to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee seems to be focussed on tikanga being what he calls “a belief system” and not what he calls a "proper law subject".  

And because he sees it as being a belief system, he doesn’t think it’s relevant to be a compulsory element of a law degree. 

And I agree with him. On the compulsory bit. 

But I think any law student worth their salt would be an idiot to think they can ignore tikanga. Which is why I think it should be voluntary, not compulsory. 

And I say that because I think tikanga Māori is something of a horse that has already bolted. What I’m getting at there, is that Māori principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge can’t be ignored. 

You might be someone who wants to ignore them. But if you’re happy living under a rock, then good luck to you. 

But if someone reckons they’re going to make a good fist of being a lawyer in New Zealand in the 21st century, then they can forget about landing a job at any of the big law firms if they don’t understand Māori customary law.  

They can forget about getting involved in environmental law. They can certainly forget about becoming an in-house lawyer at any of the government departments, or local councils. They can forget about getting involved in criminal law. 

That’s because Māori customary law —or tikanga— has become so entwined in our legal system. 

If you want a recent and very local example, here it is: Peter Ellis who was convicted for offences at the old Civic Creche, in Christchurch.  

In 2019, the Supreme Court allowed him to appeal his convictions but he died a few months later. Nevertheless, his sexual offending convictions were quashed after he died, because the Supreme Court considered his appeal —even though he was no longer alive— based on tikanga. 

Normally, a person's legal proceedings die with them. But Ellis' lawyers argued that tikanga, the customary rules which govern Māori life, was part of New Zealand's common law. 

Under tikanga, Ellis had the right to clear his name or re-establish his mana, even after he died.  

The Crown did not oppose the argument, agreeing that tikanga had a place in New Zealand law, and his name was cleared. Even though he wasn't alive to see it happen. 

So that’s why I think anyone wanting to be a lawyer should study tikanga Māori. But only if

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup on Canterbury Mornings. 

The compulsory inclusion of tikanga Māori in law studies has ignited debate. Does Hipkins feel it has a place in our legal system? Should its study be compulsory? 

He was quick to make an assessment of the Government’s plan for a 'mega-prison' out at Waikeria and voice his views on Mark Mitchell being out of his depth.  

And finally, will he confirm what Carmel Sepuloni was up to whilst on leave? 

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

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