Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John MacDonald was joined by Labour Leader Chris Hipkins for their regular chat.

He asked his feelings about the ACT party wanting to sanction those who get pregnant while on the benefit, how will that impact families? 

Does he support lifting the ban on genetic engineering? And why is crime still going up under National?

LISTEN ABOVE

Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John MacDonald was joined by Labour Leader Chris Hipkins for their regular chat. 
He asked his feelings about the ACT party wanting to sanction those who get pregnant while on the benefit, how will that impact families?  
Does he support lifting the ban on genetic engineering? And why is crime still going up under National? 
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

Chris Hipkins: Labour Leader talks the Jobseeker sanctions, genetic engineering, and rising crime rates

I don’t like the idea of the Government dangling $72 million in front of the cops and saying to them: “You’ll get this if you test the number of drivers we want you to test for drugs and alcohol.”

You might think it’s great that the police are being told what’s expected of them and that some of their funding depends on it. But I don’t. 

Don’t get me wrong. There are some great things about this announcement yesterday by the Transport Minister that the Government is cracking down on drunk and stoned drivers..

As someone who thinks we should have a zero alcohol limit for drivers, anything to try and catch the clowns who drive drunk is a good thing in my book.

And the move to roadside testing of drivers for drugs can’t come quick enough. Especially, when you consider the carnage that has been caused by drivers high on drugs.

Here’s a stat that proves it: In 2022 alone, 112 people died in crashes where drugs were involved. That was about 30 percent of all road deaths that year.

So yesterday, Simeon Brown announced that the Government is going to be putting $20 million into a new roadside drug testing regime. This will happen once legislation is passed that will allow police to more easily test drivers for drugs.

The bill is going through the select committee process and submissions are due to close shortly. 

The way the legislation is drafted at the moment, anyone who is pulled over and tests positive for drugs won’t be allowed to drive for 12 hours. Samples will be sent off to the laboratory for more sophisticated testing and, if they come back positive as well, the driver will get a fine and demerit points.

The stoners aren’t happy. Or should I say that the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (also known as NORML) aren’t happy. Because they aren’t convinced that the technology used in roadside drug testing is accurate enough.

Green MP Julie-Anne Genter is someone else who has reservations. She says there’s a chance that people who use cannabis legally for pain relief, for example, could get done. 

Either way, I think it’s a good thing. And once the legislation is passed, the Government will give the cops the green light and will be expecting them to do 50,000 roadside drug tests a year.

As for the alcohol testing, the Government’s increasing the breath-testing target from 3 million tests to 3.3 million tests per year, and it wants 65 percent of alcohol breath tests to be done at your typical high-risk times for people driving drunk.

He says the police have been a bit haphazard in recent years with breath-testing drivers and wants a more consistent approach.

So yes, it’s great there’s going to be more roadside testing for drunk drivers and it’s brilliant there’s going to be testing for drugged-up drivers, as well.

But, as I said before, I don’t like this “performance” element the Government is attaching to the funding for what it’s calling its Road Policing Investment Programme.

It’s telling the police that they’ll only get $72 million of the funding if they meet the Government's target of 3.3 million roadside alcohol tests a year and 50,000 roadside drug tests a year.

I don’t like it because, even though 65 percent of the tests are to be done at high-risk times, we’ll have the cops either scrambling to do the other 35 percent at times and in places where it becomes nothing more than a box-ticking exercise; or they won’t do other worthwhile stuff because they’ll be busy meeting the target so they can get their funding.

I think it’s a very slippery slope. Because what’s to stop the Government doing the same thing with other elements of police funding? Nothing.

And, while we know the Prime Minister is all about KPIs and quarterly plans, patrolling roads and fighting crime never fits into beautifully-crafted gantt charts and spreadsheets. And I imagine there’ll be plenty of cops who find this carrot-and-stick approach the Government is taking somewhat offensive.

LISTEN ABOVE

I don’t like the idea of the Government dangling $72 million in front of the cops and saying to them: “You’ll get this if you test the number of drivers we want you to test for drugs and alcohol.” 
You might think it’s great that the police are being told what’s expected of them and that some of their funding depends on it. But I don’t.  
Don’t get me wrong. There are some great things about this announcement yesterday by the Transport Minister that the Government is cracking down on drunk and stoned drivers.. 
As someone who thinks we should have a zero alcohol limit for drivers, anything to try and catch the clowns who drive drunk is a good thing in my book. 
And the move to roadside testing of drivers for drugs can’t come quick enough. Especially, when you consider the carnage that has been caused by drivers high on drugs. 
Here’s a stat that proves it: In 2022 alone, 112 people died in crashes where drugs were involved. That was about 30 percent of all road deaths that year. 
So yesterday, Simeon Brown announced that the Government is going to be putting $20 million into a new roadside drug testing regime. This will happen once legislation is passed that will allow police to more easily test drivers for drugs. 
The bill is going through the select committee process and submissions are due to close shortly.  
The way the legislation is drafted at the moment, anyone who is pulled over and tests positive for drugs won’t be allowed to drive for 12 hours. Samples will be sent off to the laboratory for more sophisticated testing and, if they come back positive as well, the driver will get a fine and demerit points. 
The stoners aren’t happy. Or should I say that the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (also known as NORML) aren’t happy. Because they aren’t convinced that the technology used in roadside drug testing is accurate enough. 
Green MP Julie-Anne Genter is someone else who has reservations. She says there’s a chance that people who use cannabis legally for pain relief, for example, could get done.    
Either way, I think it’s a good thing. And once the legislation is passed, the Government will give the cops the green light and will be expecting them to do 50,000 roadside drug tests a year. 
As for the alcohol testing, the Government’s increasing the breath-testing target from 3 million tests to 3.3 million tests per year, and it wants 65 percent of alcohol breath tests to be done at your typical high-risk times for people driving drunk. 
He says the police have been a bit haphazard in recent years with breath-testing drivers and wants a more consistent approach. 
So yes, it’s great there’s going to be more roadside testing for drunk drivers and it’s brilliant there’s going to be testing for drugged-up drivers, as well. 
But, as I said before, I don’t like this “performance” element the Government is attaching to the funding for what it’s calling its Road Policing Investment Programme. 
It’s telling the police that they’ll only get $72 million of the funding if they meet the Government's target of 3.3 million roadside alcohol tests a year and 50,000 roadside drug tests a year. 
I don’t like it because, even though 65 percent of the tests are to be done at high-risk times, we’ll have the cops either scrambling to do the other 35 percent at times and in places where it becomes nothing more than a box-ticking exercise; or they won’t do other worthwhile stuff because they’ll be busy meeting the target so they can get their funding. 
I think it’s a very slippery slope. Because what’s to stop the Government doing the same thing with other elements of police funding? Nothing. 
And, while we know the Prime Minister is all about KPIs and quarterly plans, patrolling roads and fighting crime never fits into beautifully-crafted gantt charts and spreadsheets. And I imagine there’ll be plenty of cops who find this carrot-and-stick approach the Government is taking somewhat offensive. 
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: I don't like this carrot-and-stick road safety funding

If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then tell anyone you know who supports Manchester City to burn their shirt.

If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then tell anyone you know who’s right into Formula 1 that they should be ashamed of themselves.

If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then you’ll be with New Zealand golfing legend Sir Bob Charles who doesn’t want a bar of the LIV Golf Tour coming to Christchurch.  

The golf tour which is funded by Saudi Arabia. And which has been accused of using sport to cover up Saudi Arabia's appalling human rights record. 

Amnesty International says the Saudis are still executing people; they discriminate against women; they treat migrants poorly; they punish and even kill people for being anything other than heterosexual.

But they’re also investing like there’s no tomorrow in sport. Football, Formula 1 motor racing, horse racing, cricket, boxing, tennis, wrestling, mixed martial arts, eSports and golf.   

Which is how LIV Golf came about - as an alternative to the staid and traditional PGA Golf Tour. It’s been a disruptor. Just like the Indian Premier Cricket League. 

And, as well as being accused of sportswashing —or trying to use sport as a distraction from the way Saudi Arabia treats people— it’s also put noses out of joint by signing mega million-dollar deals with the sport's stars.

And it could be coming to Christchurch as early as next year. 

The understanding is that LIV Golf has its eyes on either the Clearwater or Shirley courses. It already has an event in Adelaide which, apparently, went off big time when it was held there earlier this year.

Nearly a hundred thousand people turned up. And I’m no golf expert but, talking to people who know a thing-or-two about golf, they say that LIV Golf is a bit like a cross between golf and the rugby sevens. 

Because of the way that it’s all about the experience for the spectators. A bit like SailGP, actually, too. An experience for the spectators as much as it is a sporting event.

With LIV Golf they have music out on the greens. I gather, too, that the crowds are allowed to get closer to the action. So it’s all about putting on a great time for the people who turn up.

And like SailGP, for example, it probably gets your non-golfing types going along as much as your golfing types. 

But local golfing legend, Sir Bob Charles —who lives in Christchurch— doesn’t want a bar of it. 

He says he wants nothing to do with it because of the way it has divided the sport. 

Here’s what he’s been saying to the NZ Herald: “I hope they’re not playing at either of my golf courses. I don’t endorse LIV Golf in any way. In fact, quite the opposite. I want nothing to do with it. I wouldn’t walk across the street to watch.”  

But it seems there are a truckload of people who do cross the road to watch. I base that on the turn-out to events LIV has already held.

I mentioned Adeliade earlier - that’s the closest the tour has come to New Zealand. So far, anyway. My understanding is that it wants to have an event in New Zealand that it could run either before or after the one in Adeliade.

There’s been interest from other parts of Australia but LIV Golf doesn’t want to have another event on that side of the Tasman, and New Zealand is its preference. Which is why some of its people have visited Christchurch to check the place out.

LIV Golf has proved hugely popular with younger people, in particular. 

In Adelaide, there was partying well into the night. Here’s an idea of how much of a party it was - they sold nearly 120-thousand beers. And it was brilliant for tourism, with 40 percent of people travelling to Adelaide from elsewhere.

So yes, I’m not into Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. Which is putting it mildly. But I think, just by the sheer level of its involvement in global sport, that the horse has already bolted and we shouldn't be turning our back on LIV Golf heading to Christchurch. 

If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then tell anyone you know who supports Manchester City to burn their shirt. 
If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then tell anyone you know who’s right into Formula 1 that they should be ashamed of themselves. 
If you don’t like the idea of Saudi Arabia putting money into sport, then you’ll be with New Zealand golfing legend Sir Bob Charles who doesn’t want a bar of the LIV Golf Tour coming to Christchurch.  
The golf tour which is funded by Saudi Arabia. And which has been accused of using sport to cover up Saudi Arabia's appalling human rights record.  
Amnesty International says the Saudis are still executing people; they discriminate against women; they treat migrants poorly; they punish and even kill people for being anything other than heterosexual. 
But they’re also investing like there’s no tomorrow in sport. Football, Formula 1 motor racing, horse racing, cricket, boxing, tennis, wrestling, mixed martial arts, eSports and golf.    
Which is how LIV Golf came about - as an alternative to the staid and traditional PGA Golf Tour. It’s been a disruptor. Just like the Indian Premier Cricket League.  
And, as well as being accused of sportswashing —or trying to use sport as a distraction from the way Saudi Arabia treats people— it’s also put noses out of joint by signing mega million-dollar deals with the sport's stars. 
And it could be coming to Christchurch as early as next year.  
The understanding is that LIV Golf has its eyes on either the Clearwater or Shirley courses. It already has an event in Adelaide which, apparently, went off big time when it was held there earlier this year. 
Nearly a hundred thousand people turned up. And I’m no golf expert but, talking to people who know a thing-or-two about golf, they say that LIV Golf is a bit like a cross between golf and the rugby sevens.  
Because of the way that it’s all about the experience for the spectators. A bit like SailGP, actually, too. An experience for the spectators as much as it is a sporting event. 
With LIV Golf they have music out on the greens. I gather, too, that the crowds are allowed to get closer to the action. So it’s all about putting on a great time for the people who turn up. 
And like SailGP, for example, it probably gets your non-golfing types going along as much as your golfing types.  
But local golfing legend, Sir Bob Charles —who lives in Christchurch— doesn’t want a bar of it.  
He says he wants nothing to do with it because of the way it has divided the sport.  
Here’s what he’s been saying to the NZ Herald: “I hope they’re not playing at either of my golf courses. I don’t endorse LIV Golf in any way. In fact, quite the opposite. I want nothing to do with it. I wouldn’t walk across the street to watch.”   
But it seems there are a truckload of people who do cross the road to watch. I base that on the turn-out to events LIV has already held. 
I mentioned Adeliade earlier - that’s the closest the tour has come to New Zealand. So far, anyway. My understanding is that it wants to have an event in New Zealand that it could run either before or after the one in Adeliade. 
There’s been interest from other parts of Australia but LIV Golf doesn’t want to have another event on that side of the Tasman, and New Zealand is its preference. Which is why some of its people have visited Christchurch to check the place out. 
LIV Golf has proved hugely popular with younger people, in particular.  
In Adelaide, there was partying well into the night. Here’s an idea of how much of a party it was - they sold nearly 120-thousand beers. And it was brilliant for tourism, with 40 percent of people travelling to Adelaide from elsewhere. 
So yes, I’m not into Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. Which is putting it mildly. But I think, just by the sheer level of its involvement in global sport, that the horse has already bolted and we shouldn't be turning our back on LIV Golf heading to Christchurch.

John MacDonald: We'd be hypocrites if we said no to LIV Golf

When you drive the Southern Motorway between Rolleston and Christchurch, how fast do you go?

According to the mayor of Selwyn, Sam Broughton, chances are you go faster than 100 kph. Which is why he thinks the speed limit on that piece of road should be lifted to 120 kph.

An idea which I think is ridiculous. 

I’m thinking it probably has something to do with the come-to-Jesus moment I had about speed limits when I was travelling around the South Island last summer. When I realised that doing 80 kph on a 100 kph is, actually, quite enjoyable. And safer.

I used to be all-for getting back to the old 50 kph and 100 kph. Not so much now.

Where this idea of the Selwyn mayor's has come from, is the work the Government’s doing at the  moment reviewing speed limits around the country.

Quite rightly, it’s got its sights set on some of the non-sensical speed limit changes that have popped-up around the place recently. 

And some of the speed limits you see are nuts. Case in point: Colombo Street, in Christchurch, heading towards the Cashmere Hills. It reduces for a very short stretch because of a nearby school - which isn’t even on Colombo Street.

Then you go a bit further up the road to where there is a school on Colombo Street, but there’s no speed reduction!

So Transport Minister Simeon Brown has sent around a document to local councils asking for their feedback.

And what the councils are being asked to do is give advice on highways they think should have a speed limit of 120 kph instead of 100.

And Selwyn’s Sam Broughton has told the Government that that beautiful stretch of motorway from Rolleston to Brougham Street should have a speed limit of 120, because a lot of drivers are travelling faster than 100, anyway.

Which is an interesting way of justifying it. ‘Oh look, they're breaking the rule so let’s change it.’

He says in his letter to the Transport Minister: “Whether it is for general traffic, direct public transport services, or moving freight, council considers increasing the speed limit of the motorway between Rolleston and Brougham St will assist in improving efficiency and connectivity while still being safe.”

And he goes on to say: “This is reflected in generally higher average speeds above 100 kms per hour we already observe along the motorway.”

So that’s the bit where he’s saying people break the rules anyway, so let’s change them.

Since the Southern Motorway opened in 2020, five people have been seriously injured in crashes. There have been no fatal accidents.

And the number of vehicles using the motorway is just going to increase. In 2021, there were 21,000 vehicles on the motorway daily. This is expected to jump to 33,000 by 2040.

I’m not the only one who thinks it's a stupid idea to increase the speed limit. Transport expert Professor Simon Kingham —from the University of Canterbury— feels the same. Which, you might say, he would anyway, because Simon’s not big on speed.

He’s probably not that big on vehicles, full stop, to be fair. But I agree with him on this one.

Because he and I only see one outcome from increasing the speed limit to 120 kph on the Southern Motorway. More crashes and more severe crashes.

Because if it’s 100 now and the Selwyn council is noticing that a lot of people are going faster than that, what do you think they’ll do if it’s 120? They’ll go even faster, won’t they?

I remember a few weeks back, we were talking about restricting the engine size for young or new drivers, and there was no shortage of people saying you can drive a Demio or any one of those shopping basket cars upwards of 150 kph.

So if you increase the speed limit on the Southern Motorway, as the mayor of Selwyn thinks we should, then I think we can pretty safely assume that there’ll be a lot of drivers quite happy to nudge it up to 130 kph. And that could be disastrous.

Which is why it’s a “no” from me.

When you drive the Southern Motorway between Rolleston and Christchurch, how fast do you go? 
According to the mayor of Selwyn, Sam Broughton, chances are you go faster than 100 kph. Which is why he thinks the speed limit on that piece of road should be lifted to 120 kph. 
An idea which I think is ridiculous.  
I’m thinking it probably has something to do with the come-to-Jesus moment I had about speed limits when I was travelling around the South Island last summer. When I realised that doing 80 kph on a 100 kph is, actually, quite enjoyable. And safer. 
I used to be all-for getting back to the old 50 kph and 100 kph. Not so much now. 
Where this idea of the Selwyn mayor's has come from, is the work the Government’s doing at the  moment reviewing speed limits around the country. 
Quite rightly, it’s got its sights set on some of the non-sensical speed limit changes that have popped-up around the place recently.  
And some of the speed limits you see are nuts. Case in point: Colombo Street, in Christchurch, heading towards the Cashmere Hills. It reduces for a very short stretch because of a nearby school - which isn’t even on Colombo Street. 
Then you go a bit further up the road to where there is a school on Colombo Street, but there’s no speed reduction! 
So Transport Minister Simeon Brown has sent around a document to local councils asking for their feedback. 
And what the councils are being asked to do is give advice on highways they think should have a speed limit of 120 kph instead of 100. 
And Selwyn’s Sam Broughton has told the Government that that beautiful stretch of motorway from Rolleston to Brougham Street should have a speed limit of 120, because a lot of drivers are travelling faster than 100, anyway. 
Which is an interesting way of justifying it. ‘Oh look, they're breaking the rule so let’s change it.’ 
He says in his letter to the Transport Minister: “Whether it is for general traffic, direct public transport services, or moving freight, council considers increasing the speed limit of the motorway between Rolleston and Brougham St will assist in improving efficiency and connectivity while still being safe.” 
And he goes on to say: “This is reflected in generally higher average speeds above 100 kms per hour we already observe along the motorway.” 
So that’s the bit where he’s saying people break the rules anyway, so let’s change them. 
Since the Southern Motorway opened in 2020, five people have been seriously injured in crashes. There have been no fatal accidents. 
And the number of vehicles using the motorway is just going to increase. In 2021, there were 21,000 vehicles on the motorway daily. This is expected to jump to 33,000 by 2040. 
I’m not the only one who thinks it's a stupid idea to increase the speed limit. Transport expert Professor Simon Kingham —from the University of Canterbury— feels the same. Which, you might say, he would anyway, because Simon’s not big on speed. 
He’s probably not that big on vehicles, full stop, to be fair. But I agree with him on this one. 
Because he and I only see one outcome from increasing the speed limit to 120 kph on the Southern Motorway. More crashes and more severe crashes. 
Because if it’s 100 now and the Selwyn council is noticing that a lot of people are going faster than that, what do you think they’ll do if it’s 120? They’ll go even faster, won’t they? 
I remember a few weeks back, we were talking about restricting the engine size for young or new drivers, and there was no shortage of people saying you can drive a Demio or any one of those shopping basket cars upwards of 150 kph. 
So if you increase the speed limit on the Southern Motorway, as the mayor of Selwyn thinks we should, then I think we can pretty safely assume that there’ll be a lot of drivers quite happy to nudge it up to 130 kph. And that could be disastrous. 
Which is why it’s a “no” from me.

Chris Hipkins: Labour Leader talks the Jobseeker sanctions, genetic engineering, and rising crime rates

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips