Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Newstalk ZB
  • 0.0 (0)
  • POLITICS
  • UPDATED DAILY
Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

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.

  1. 23 HR. AGO

    Leeann Watson: Business Canterbury CEO on the mood of business owners and growing confidence in the region

    In the first of their regular catch ups, Business Canterbury’s Leeann Watson joined John MacDonald in studio to dig into what’s happening on the business front.  They discussed how business owners are feeling, and what can be done to help them continue to gain confidence and grow in the region.  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    14 min

  2. 23 HR. AGO

    John MacDonald: Weasel words aren't the way to respond to Destiny's hate speech

    I am so glad that I’m not a member of the local rainbow community. Because if I was, I would be despairing at the weasel words the Christchurch mayor and the city council are trotting out about the Destiny Church's despicable disruption of the pride month opening event in Christchurch on Saturday.   And it just tells me that people are either scared of taking on the Destiny Church or they somehow think their hatred is okay.   So what happened at the weekend is the annual “walk for support” for LGBTQIA+ people wound up at the Bridge of Remembrance, and these muppets from the Destiny Church were there protesting against them.   They were carrying signs saying things about puberty blockers and child abuse and telling the people there to “repent”.   They also had a speaker system there, which they shouldn't have. But no one did anything about it.   Which is why a local rainbow campaigner is saying that the city council should apologise for not shutting down this illegal protest driven by nothing more than hatred.   And I agree. But I don't think that’s going to be coming anytime soon, considering the weasel words being trotted out by mayor Phil Mauger and the council's chief executive.   Phil Mauger is saying that everyone has the right to protest but it was “not polite” of the Destiny Church to set up their loudspeakers right beside the event.   He says it was “quite disappointing”, but he’s pleased things didn't get out of control like they did when the Destiny Church went awol at that pride event in Auckland the other week.   So that’s the mayor. But it gets even worse with what the council’s chief executive is saying.   Mary Richardson says: “We have to respect other people’s democratic right to protest, even if we don’t agree with their views.”    And the strongest action the council took was to send out a noise control officer - who found that there weren’t any noise limit breaches. Do me a favour.    That’s not all. There’s some classic passing-of-the-buck going on, with the council saying that it’s the job of the police to deal with public disturbances and the police saying permission to set-up loudspeakers is the job of the council and so the council has to deal with it, which is why the noise control officer was sent out.   But could you get a more lame response if you tried? But remember that this isn’t the first time that the Christchurch City Council has turned a blind eye to the Destiny Church.   You’ll remember how it waived $50,000 in fines that it had sent the church for the disruption caused by its anti-vax mandate protests during covid. That was all to do with Destiny Church not following the rules, not working with the council so it could make sure that traffic management was sorted.   But the council ripped those tickets up. Derek Tait from Destiny had a cup of tea with former mayor Lianne Dalziell and all was forgiven.    And it’s doing the exact same thing with these weasel words about the Destiny crew's behaviour on Saturday.   This is the council, let me remind you, that was all in favour of putting a rainbow crossing somewhere in town. Which, when it comes down to it, doesn't take much fortitude.   Yes, paint the crossing. I’m all for it.   But, when it comes down to it, painting a road crossing is nothing like staring down those clowns from the Destiny Church and telling them that their messages of hatred are not welcome.   And telling them that we’ve had a gutsful of them not giving a damn about the rules.  Rules that you and I would be expected to follow. And, if we didn't, there’d be consequences. Not if you're the Destiny Church, though, it seems.   So I’m with the pride campaigners who are saying today that the council could’ve and should’ve done a lot more on Saturday when the Destiny muppets turned up at this event. But the council didn’t - and, for that, it should apologise.   But that’s not all. The mayor and his council need to condemn Destiny Church for their messages of hatred.  If the strongest thing Phil Mauger can say is that “wasn’t polite” of them to do what they did, then don’t expect them to pull their heads in anytime soon.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    5 min

  3. 1 DAY AGO

    John MacDonald: Zelensky will be back at the White House

    What we saw at the White House at the weekend was nothing short of vile. But we shouldn’t be surprised. Watching it, I was blown away. But I wasn’t surprised. And I reckon that, despite all the talk coming from European countries since Saturday, I reckon that Ukraine’s president will realise he has no option but to give Trump what he wants. But let’s go back to what happened in the Oval Office on Saturday. And it wasn’t just Donald Trump and JD Vance. There was that clown reporter who asked Volodymyr Zelensky why he wasn’t wearing a suit. As for Trump and Vance, though, I thought they were like a couple of parents losing their rag with one of the kids. Have you said thank you? After all we've done for you, you can’t even say thank you. Talk about cringe. Here were these two guys berating someone who doesn’t even have English as his first language. And while I thought it was vile. And while I was blown away by it all. I still wasn’t surprised.  Because what better way to tell European countries that they better get their head around the idea of giving more support for Ukraine’s war with Russia? Trump’s been telling Europe this. At the weekend he was yelling it. And it seems to have worked. European countries are already making noises about standing firm with Ukraine. But, as vice-president JD Vance said on Saturday - and this is the one thing I thought he was right on - he said you don’t win wars just thumping your chest. Actions win wars. So I’ll give him that one. But it was kind of odd that, as soon as he’d said that, he started going on about diplomacy being the answer and when Zelensky asked him what he meant by diplomacy, the vice-president suddenly became very undiplomatic in front of the cameras. And then Trump joined in and it was a shouting match. At one point Trump did an Andrew Bailey and touched Zelenskyy on the arm during their “animated discussion”. The question now is, what will happen next? My pick is that Zelensky, even though he must have felt completely under attack, will lick his wounds and he’ll be back at the White House. Mark my words. Because, even though he knows Russia has form and that Russia could keep attacking Ukraine, even with the minerals deal in place, Zelensky knows that Europe has form too when it comes to supporting Ukraine. He knows that European countries talk a lot, but their contribution to the war effort doesn't always match the talk. So Ukraine still needs America. And Zelensky, if he hasn’t admitted it to himself already, he will eventually. But Trump is still going to have to tread carefully. As a headline in the New York Times says: “Trump is rootin’ for Putin”. And while he might think that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is a good guy, most Americans don’t. But that won’t be enough to stop him. Because, as he said in the Oval Office on Saturday, he and Putin went through a lot together when there was all that talk about Russia interfering in the US elections. And, as we know, that is one grudge the president will never let go of. So even if Americans aren’t happy with their president being mates with Putin, he won’t care.  Zelensky will realise that. And I think he’ll be back at the White House to sign that deal sooner rather than later. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    5 min

  4. 4 DAYS AGO

    John MacDonald: Four-year terms for councils? No thanks

    When the Government announced yesterday that it wants to have a binding referendum on a four-year parliamentary term here in New Zealand, I was all for it.   I've been all for it for a while now.  But I’m totally against the idea that we do the same with local councils. In fact, I’m so against it, that it could be enough to put me off voting in favour of a four-year parliamentary term.   That’s how strongly I feel about it.   Four-year local government terms is something the outfit representing most councils, Local Government New Zealand, has been wanting for a while now.    Christchurch mayor Phil Mauger has jumped on the bandwagon too. He also thinks that a four-year term would be great for councils.   He might feel that way, and Local Government New Zealand might feel that way, but it’s the last thing we want for our local councils.  There are a couple of reasons why I’m comfortable with central government getting a four-year term. First and foremost, I don’t think three years is enough time for governments to get stuff done.    The other reason why I’m good with central governments getting an extra year in power is that governments, generally, are pretty functional.   That's because if you’re in government, you have to toe the party line. I know David Seymour and Winston Peters test that a bit, but that’s MMP and it’s what coalition governments are all about. But generally, governments keep it together and stick together for the full term.    Councils though – completely different story. Just the other day we had a councillor in Christchurch accusing the mayor of lacking leadership.    We’ve got factions around that table, and I don’t imagine other councils are any different. Why on earth would you want to drag that out for an extra year?   How often do you hear Phil Mauger and his supporters lamenting the fact that he doesn’t have enough like-minded councillors around the table with him and how that impedes him from making any meaningful change? You hear it all the time.   Why would you want to give that lot an extra year? The answer is you wouldn’t.   With central government ministers, for example, if they do a hopeless job they either lose their portfolios or they resign.   A mayor can’t do that. A mayor of any council is stuck with whoever we vote and put into council alongside them.   Wellington is another brilliant example of a dysfunctional council. Why would people there want to lumber their city with that line-up for another year? They wouldn’t.   Aside from the fact that most councillors in most councils find it hard to get on with each other, the other thing that makes local government in less need of a four-year term than central government, is that councils are actually much better than central government when it comes to long-term planning.  Not to get too bogged down in council-speak, but councils have these 10-year plans. Governments don’t. With councils, you don’t have the holus-bolus cancelling of stuff that you can get when there’s a change of government, either.   At the council, there’s a plan in place and after an election you just have a new lot overseeing it. So this argument that councils need more time to get stuff done doesn’t wash with me. Unlike governments. Which do.    Because governments come in and change policies and do things like cancel ferry contracts. The disruption can be huge.   And they need more time, if anything, to clean up the mess they can create when they’re first elected.     So for me, the differences between central government and local government are huge and thinking they both need to four-year terms is nonsense.   And as I say, if councils getting four-year terms is the by-product of central government getting four-year terms, then I’ll be voting “no” in the referendum.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    5 min

  5. 4 DAYS AGO

    Politics Friday with Megan Woods and Matt Doocey: Four-year terms, Councils, citizen's arrests, and the defence budget

    Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Labour’s Megan Woods and National’s Matt Doocey to delve into some of the biggest topics of the week.   Four-year parliamentary terms could be on the table – what are the benefits of an extra year? What would be the potential downfalls for councils?  Would either of them make a citizen’s arrest?   And is it true Labour cut the budget for the defence force?  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    21 min

  6. 5 DAYS AGO

    John MacDonald: Chch council should be red-faced over red zone decision

    Don’t you get it?   I’m not saying this to you – I’m saying it to the Christchurch City Council, which thinks there is no need to have locals on this new committee its setting up to oversee the red zone on the east side of Christchurch.   This is the 600-hectare Ōtākaro/Avon River Corridor which has attracted all sorts of controversy since the government took it over after the earthquakes.   Tens of thousands of people used to live in the area before 2011. Not anymore.    There is a plan to do something with it. It’s a long-term plan, but this committee is being set-up to look after things for the time being. And the council is demonstrating classic council arrogance, thinking it doesn’t need to include any of the people who have put their hearts and souls into the area.  And instead, it’s setting up a committee involving people from the local iwi and the council itself.   People who will sit around the table, make decisions, and it will all be very convenient because they won’t have to deal with those pesky locals.    Pesky locals who used to live in the area, went through the trauma of being turfed out after the quakes, but didn't turn their back on it.   They stayed involved. Stayed committed to the future of this 11-kilometre stretch of land that goes from pretty much the centre of town out to the east.   But they don't need to be involved in any of the official stuff – that’s what the council thinks. And I completely disagree with what it’s doing.   And I know exactly why the council is doing this. It’s excluding the locals from this new committee because people who aren’t part of the local government machine are a pain in the backside.   Again, I’m not saying that, but that’s how councils and government agencies see it.   They like to keep people at arm's reach. Fobbing us off with the old line about consultation and having an opportunity to have our say at some point.   But what these outfits miss is that we are over being fobbed off in that way. In fact, most people are over being consulted. So why wouldn't you let the people who are actually passionate about the area get involved in a more official capacity? It makes absolutely no sense to me.    So what’s happened is 32 people representing most groups working in the river corridor have written an open letter to the mayor, the deputy mayor, and local iwi, telling them that there needs to be a local on this committee.   And the really important thing to note here, is that no one knows how long this committee is going to be in place.   The regeneration plan for the red zone will take decades and this committee could be around for yonks. Which is why there has to be more than just council and iwi reps on it.   Surely we know by now that, when it comes to anything to do with post-earthquake recovery, nothing happens on time. Things take years and we often look up and realise that some short-term temporary thing is going on for ever.   Which this committee could end up doing. Let's face it, it probably will.   And, let’s face it, anything that has been happening in the area so far has been led by the community.   For them to be shut out by the council at this point is a slap in the face and the council must confirm that a member of the local community will be on this committee from day one.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    6 min

  7. 5 DAYS AGO

    Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayor talks roading plan, red zone governance, inner city noise limits

    Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald live in studio for their regular catch up.  Community members of Christchurch’s red zone are outraged over their exclusion from a governance group overseeing the future development of the area – why have they been left out?  The age-old question of who has the right to a quiet night has reared its head once again. Inner city noise limits are being reviewed, but if the bars came first, should residents have to deal?  And Mauger has come under fire for voting against a roading plan around the new recreation centre – can he defend his thinking despite the project still going ahead?  LISTEN ABOVE  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    9 min

  8. 6 DAYS AGO

    John MacDonald: I'm 50/50 when it comes to citizen's arrests

    I’m 50/50 on this idea the Government’s got of letting people do citizens arrests.   For security guards? Yes. For every other member of the public? It’s a definite no for me.  Let’s start with security guards and why I think these powers would be good for them.   How long have we been saying that they need more teeth to do their job? Ages.  And what we’ve meant by that, is the ability or the right to actually provide security as opposed to standing at the door and pretty much doing nothing when someone nicks stuff from a shop or assaults someone.   I think it's fair to say that at the moment, security guards only really come to life at sports matches. Everywhere else, they're about as threatening as the person who stands at the door at Bunnings. Or parent help at the Year 8 disco. So, yes, change the law to the extent where security guards are enabled to be more effective than they are now.  There is one proviso, though: we will have to make sure that security guards are screened and trained even better than they are now.  I think too, security firms will have to consider the type of people they employ. Because if the law changes and security guards have the right to detain people, then we’re going to have to have security guards who are physically capable of doing it.   When I look around now at some of the security guards outside places like banks, for example, I can’t imagine some of them being capable of dragging someone to the ground and sitting on them until the cops arrive.   But as for the rest of us being allowed to make citizens arrests – forget about it. For many reasons.   For me, it’s not a particular line in the Crimes Act that stops me from intervening when I see someone breaking the law. I have never, and never will, make a citizen's arrest because I’ve got no idea what I’m taking on.   I’m not the largest person in the world, but even if I was, you’d never get me intervening. Because you just don't know what someone is on, what they’re capable of, and what weapon they might be carrying.   I had an experience recently where a guy, completely off his face on something, was assaulting another guy.   And straight away I thought ‘I’m not getting involved here’. And when I say not getting involved, I mean physically. It wasn’t the law stopping me - it was my own personal safety that stopped me.    I did stick around though, and I called the cops. But there was no way I was going to take him on, and there is no way I’d attempt any sort of citizen's arrest.   But I reckon the really dangerous aspect of this is the licence it would give muppets out there to take the law into their own hands.   You’ll know as much as me, that there are people who would just love to have the law on their side. Thinking they're Bodie and Doyle from The Professionals TV show.    And while I’m not one to stick up for criminals, I wouldn’t want them getting roughed up unnecessarily by the vigilante types who would see this law change as a licence to do whatever they wanted to detain someone.  What’s more, this law change would go completely against everything the police tell us about not intervening and putting ourselves in danger.   For the same reasons why I will never do it: you have no idea what someone is capable of doing, especially if they’re high on drugs, and you don’t know what weapons they might be carrying. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    6 min
See All (930)

About

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.

Information

More From Newstalk ZB

You Might Also Like

To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

Stay up to date with this show

Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes, and get the latest updates.
Select a country or region

Africa, Middle East, and India

Asia Pacific

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

The United States and Canada