Bruce Springsteen's Born to Run album is going to be performed in its entirety in the first Come Together concert for 2026 at the Christchurch Town Hall on Friday 29 May. 

One of the musicians involved is Christchurch's Adam McGrath, from local band The Eastern. He joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings ahead of the big gig and he took his guitar along to cover one of "The Bosses" biggest hits.

LISTEN ABOVE

Bruce Springsteen's&nbsp;Born to Run album is going to be performed in its entirety in the first Come Together concert for 2026 at the Christchurch Town Hall on Friday 29 May.&nbsp;
One of the musicians involved is Christchurch's Adam McGrath, from local band The Eastern. He joined John MacDonald on Canterbury Mornings ahead of the big gig and he took his guitar along to cover one of "The Bosses" biggest hits.
LISTEN ABOVE

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.

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.

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.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Adam McGrath ahead of the "Come Together" show at the Christchurch Town Hall

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6a43f28d-c967-4e4b-b55c-b4510016b87d/transcript

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is defending One New Zealand Stadium for its lack of facilities for general admission concert goers.

Some of the 12-thousand people with standing tickets at Saturday's 'Once In A Lifetime' show, were surprised to have to use port-a-loos and food trucks outside the roofed venue. 

The permanent facilities were designed for the seated capacity. 

Mayor Phil Mauger told Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings this was always the plan. 

He also said that One New Zealand Stadium may have a smaller set up for the Foo Fighters if sales don't reach a certain threshold. 

"It'll be the cut down version for Foo Fighters if they don't reach a certain number of people." 

They also discussed the consultations taking place for Cathedral Square, and what can be done about accident-prone roads across the city.

LISTEN ABOVE

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger is defending One New Zealand Stadium for its lack of facilities for general admission concert goers.
Some of the 12-thousand people with standing tickets at Saturday's 'Once In A Lifetime' show, were surprised to have to use port-a-loos and food trucks outside the roofed venue.&nbsp;
The permanent facilities were designed for the seated capacity.&nbsp;
Mayor Phil Mauger told Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings this was always the plan.&nbsp;
He also said that One New Zealand Stadium may have a smaller set up for the Foo Fighters if sales don't reach a certain threshold.&nbsp;
"It'll be the cut down version for Foo Fighters if they don't reach a certain number of people."&nbsp;
They also discussed the consultations taking place for Cathedral Square, and what can be done about accident-prone roads across the city.
LISTEN ABOVE

Christchrch Mayor Phil Mauger on One New Zealand Stadium Portaloos, council funded cycle classes, and consultations for Cathedral Square

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/7fa5b217-053e-439a-933d-b45100235d31/transcript

Sometimes it feels like an easy thing to say that politicians have no idea what really matters to us. What’s important to us - the people who put them in their positions of power.

Today, it may be the easiest it’s ever been to say that sort of thing.

Let’s start with Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Who, I think, said one of the most arrogant things I’ve heard any politician say.

This happened yesterday. When he was talking about pretty much the only policy his party has been able to come up with since it was turfed out of government at the last election.

The future fund. Which would use some of the profits from our state-owned enterprises to invest in new start-up businesses.

Chris Hipkins has been saying that Labour’s not going to be announcing any new election policies until after next week’s budget. Until it has a better handle on the government’s finances before promising things the country can’t afford.

Yesterday, he went next level. This was after he said earlier in the week that he wouldn’t be giving any more detail about Labour’s future fund policy until after the election.

He almost sounds like he knows he’s got no show of forming the next government and doesn’t want his people putting too much work into policies and things that won’t go anywhere.

I genuinely think that’s what he and Labour are starting to sound like.

Because, after the election, they won’t be needed.

But that’s not the worst bit.

Yesterday, when he was asked if he thought voters might want to know more about the future fund before the election, he said New Zealanders don’t really care about the detail.

This is in relation to which state owned enterprises would have to contribute some of their profits to the future fund if Labour formed the next government and put this policy in place.

When he was asked about that, Hipkins said New Zealanders don’t really care about those key details.

He said: “I don't think the public really care which companies are going to go in or not. I think the public care about the fact that we’re going to keep state assets and National’s going to sell them.”

The arrogance.

And, at the same time as we’ve got the Labour leader trotting out that nonsense, we’ve got MPs debating a bill that defines the meaning of man and woman.

That one’s courtesy of NZ First, which says it’s fighting “cancerous social engineering” and “woke ideology”.

Do you think, in the grand scheme of things, pointless legislation like that really matters?

And, on top of that, public service minister Paul Goldsmith has told government departments they’ve got until the end of next month to make sure they prioritise the English version of their names over the Te Reo version.

It beggars belief, doesn’t it? The arrogance of telling us to wait until after the election for policy details because, apparently, that’s not important to us.

And the pointlessness of a law defining what a man is and what a woman is; and the pointlessness of government departments having to change their logos because some people can’t handle a bit of Te Reo.

All of the examples I’ve just given tell me that our politicians have absolutely no idea what’s important to us.

LISTEN ABOVE

Sometimes it feels like an easy thing to say that politicians have no idea what really matters to us. What’s important to us - the people who put them in their positions of power.
Today, it may be the easiest it’s ever been to say that sort of thing.
Let’s start with Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Who, I think, said one of the most arrogant things I’ve heard any politician say.
This happened yesterday. When he was talking about pretty much the only policy his party has been able to come up with since it was turfed out of government at the last election.
The future fund. Which would use some of the profits from our state-owned enterprises to invest in new start-up businesses.
Chris Hipkins has been saying that Labour’s not going to be announcing any new election policies until after next week’s budget. Until it has a better handle on the government’s finances before promising things the country can’t afford.
Yesterday, he went next level. This was after he said earlier in the week that he wouldn’t be giving any more detail about Labour’s future fund policy until after the election.
He almost sounds like he knows he’s got no show of forming the next government and doesn’t want his people putting too much work into policies and things that won’t go anywhere.
I genuinely think that’s what he and Labour are starting to sound like.
Because, after the election, they won’t be needed.
But that’s not the worst bit.
Yesterday, when he was asked if he thought voters might want to know more about the future fund before the election, he said New Zealanders don’t really care about the detail.
This is in relation to which state owned enterprises would have to contribute some of their profits to the future fund if Labour formed the next government and put this policy in place.
When he was asked about that, Hipkins said New Zealanders don’t really care about those key details.
He said: “I don't think the public really care which companies are going to go in or not. I think the public care about the fact that we’re going to keep state assets and National’s going to sell them.”
The arrogance.
And, at the same time as we’ve got the Labour leader trotting out that nonsense, we’ve got MPs debating a bill that defines the meaning of man and woman.
That one’s courtesy of NZ First, which says it’s fighting “cancerous social engineering” and “woke ideology”.
Do you think, in the grand scheme of things, pointless legislation like that really matters?
And, on top of that, public service minister Paul Goldsmith has told government departments they’ve got until the end of next month to make sure they prioritise the English version of their names over the Te Reo version.
It beggars belief, doesn’t it? The arrogance of telling us to wait until after the election for policy details because, apparently, that’s not important to us.
And the pointlessness of a law defining what a man is and what a woman is; and the pointlessness of government departments having to change their logos because some people can’t handle a bit of Te Reo.
All of the examples I’ve just given tell me that our politicians have absolutely no idea what’s important to us.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Politicians have no idea what's important to us

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/89218492-1753-4dbd-907a-b45100190315/transcript

I’ll make a bet with you.

These 9,000 job cuts in the public sector that the government’s announced won’t happen.

It’s easy to say. But making it happen is a completely different story.

There’ll be some, for sure. But the whole 9,000? They’re dreaming. Because, from what I’ve seen and heard so far, they are flying blind.

At the moment, there are about 65,000 people working in the public service. Cutting that by 9,000 to get it closer to 55,000 is what the government wants. Nicola Willis reckons that would save taxpayers $2.4 billion.

But, as well as reducing the number of workers, the government also wants departments to make better use of AI technology.

And this is why these 9,000 job cuts aren’t going to happen. Because the government clearly knows no more about artificial intelligence than the rest of us.

I despaired when I heard Nicola Willis saying she got one of her staff to have a play with it and produced a document within minutes.

It was like me thinking I could educate a 16-year-old about social media. Pretending I’m all over it.

Nicola Willis isn't the only one. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, for example, says he doesn’t quite know how AI could be deployed across the public service.

He says there are “enormous opportunities right across the board, and none of us know what they are yet. Some of them will be things that we've never even thought about.”

And that’s the basis they’re using for getting rid of 9,000 jobs over the next three years.

What’s more, who says we have too many public servants?

Probably the ones who say we should be more like Singapore.

They’ll tell you that Singapore has 16 government ministries and that’s what we should have too.

They’ll say Singapore is a similar sort of size population‑wise. Singapore has 6.1 million people. New Zealand’s population is 5.3 million.

But guess how many public sector workers there are in Singapore? This is what these people don’t tell you.

We’ve got 65,000. Singapore has 158,000.

So, not only does Singapore have way more government workers than we do on a purely numbers basis, it also has way more than us on a percentage of the population basis.

The government in Singapore is using AI. But it’s pouring a truckload of money into it too.

The government here isn’t talking about that. Because, yes, it might save $2.4 billion in wages and salaries reducing the number of public servants, but how much is it going to have to spend on technology?

Because you can’t just say “get AI to do it”. You need all the systems to talk to each other.

At the very least, that’s where it should be starting. Instead of the finance minister coming on the radio saying she’s used AI to make a document.

LISTEN ABOVE

I’ll make a bet with you.
These 9,000 job cuts in the public sector that the government’s announced won’t happen.
It’s easy to say. But making it happen is a completely different story.
There’ll be some, for sure. But the whole 9,000? They’re dreaming. Because, from what I’ve seen and heard so far, they are flying blind.
At the moment, there are about 65,000 people working in the public service. Cutting that by 9,000 to get it closer to 55,000 is what the government wants. Nicola Willis reckons that would save taxpayers $2.4 billion.
But, as well as reducing the number of workers, the government also wants departments to make better use of AI technology.
And this is why these 9,000 job cuts aren’t going to happen. Because the government clearly knows no more about artificial intelligence than the rest of us.
I despaired when I heard Nicola Willis saying she got one of her staff to have a play with it and produced a document within minutes.
It was like me thinking I could educate a 16-year-old about social media. Pretending I’m all over it.
Nicola Willis isn't the only one. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, for example, says he doesn’t quite know how AI could be deployed across the public service.
He says there are “enormous opportunities right across the board, and none of us know what they are yet. Some of them will be things that we've never even thought about.”
And that’s the basis they’re using for getting rid of 9,000 jobs over the next three years.
What’s more, who says we have too many public servants?
Probably the ones who say we should be more like Singapore.
They’ll tell you that Singapore has 16 government ministries and that’s what we should have too.
They’ll say Singapore is a similar sort of size population‑wise. Singapore has 6.1 million people. New Zealand’s population is 5.3 million.
But guess how many public sector workers there are in Singapore? This is what these people don’t tell you.
We’ve got 65,000. Singapore has 158,000.
So, not only does Singapore have way more government workers than we do on a purely numbers basis, it also has way more than us on a percentage of the population basis.
The government in Singapore is using AI. But it’s pouring a truckload of money into it too.
The government here isn’t talking about that. Because, yes, it might save $2.4 billion in wages and salaries reducing the number of public servants, but how much is it going to have to spend on technology?
Because you can’t just say “get AI to do it”. You need all the systems to talk to each other.
At the very least, that’s where it should be starting. Instead of the finance minister coming on the radio saying she’s used AI to make a document.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: What you don't hear about Singapore's public service

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/7097c739-90df-4d7f-a875-b450000ad2ba/transcript

Adam McGrath ahead of the "Come Together" show at the Christchurch Town Hall

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips