Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John was joined for the first time in 2023 by National Party Leader, Christopher Luxon.

John asked about his speech yesterday at Ratana, and his statements on co-governance. Why is National against it?

LISTEN ABOVE

Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings John was joined for the first time in 2023 by National Party Leader, Christopher Luxon.
John asked about his speech yesterday at Ratana, and his statements on co-governance. Why is National against it?
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 Luxon: Rātana and Co-governance

Do you know what the most pointless piece of road safety advice is? Drive to the conditions. 

I get it and it’s well-meaning. But it’s pointless. A waste of breath. Because some people are incapable of doing it. 

And it would seem from some of the reports in the past 24 hours about those two buses which went off the road yesterday on the Twizel-Tekapo highway after hitting black ice, that perhaps the drivers of those buses knew nothing about how you should be driving in sub-zero temperatures.  

So they either didn’t know how to drive to the conditions - or just didn’t care.  

This isn’t a one-off, either, by the way, and, I reckon the time has come for us to stop mucking around with this “drive to the conditions” nonsense and do one of two things. 

We either follow the lead of some European countries and make winter tyres mandatory on all vehicles. Or, as soon as we know temperatures are going to be sub-zero where there’s a state highway, we close the road. We don’t wait around until the road is frozen over and it’s too late. 

I see the guy in charge of the bus company involved in yesterday’s crashes is disputing any suggestion that they were going too fast.  He would say that, though, wouldn’t he? 

It’s not like he’s going to come out and say ‘oh yeah, those muppets I pay to drive my buses have got no idea about driving to the conditions’. 

So, instead of relying on some bus company owner in Auckland, I’m going to give more credence to the eyewitness account of a chap by the name of Tony McClelland, who was on the road at the time. I bet he isn’t buying what the bus company guy is saying, either.  

He was driving from Christchurch to Omarama. And he’s been in the news saying that the road conditions on that highway yesterday morning were the worst he’s ever seen. 

He hit black ice himself near Tekapo Airport, nearly lost control of his van and almost ended up in a ditch. So he called the police and asked them to close the road. 

Here’s a quote from what he’s saying: “You're looking at minus-5, minus-4 degrees, foggy conditions - that State Highway should have been closed. No doubt and it wasn't. There's just a big black sign up by the airfield saying 'dangerous conditions, black ice'. That's how people die."  

Thankfully, no one did die. One person has serious injuries and two others have moderate injuries. And thank goodness those buses ended-up where they did - off the road and not in the middle of it. 

But back to Tony McLelland. Once he’d called the cops, asking them to close the road, he thought about turning back but decided to press-on. But he stuck to 60kph. And it wasn’t long after that that he saw these two buses “flying out of the fog”. That’s what he’s saying. 

And here’s how he describes what he saw. "They were not doing 60. They were not doing 80. They were doing at least 100, probably a little bit more." 

And he obviously drives that road quite a bit, because he says it’s not uncommon to see drivers hoofing along at 100 kph during winter, when there’s black ice on the road. 

But this sort of nutbar driving happens everywhere. Less than two weeks ago, police caught a driver doing 134 kph in icy, foggy conditions on the road to Aoraki/Mt Cook - with the whole family on board. 

This was on State Highway 80. It was around minus-3. 

The day after that, the police came out with a warning, saying the number of people driving at “horrendous” speeds in winter conditions is appalling. 

Over a two-week period, 26 people had been caught doing speeds over 120 kph in icy conditions.  

So what happened yesterday isn’t an isolated one-off. It’s happening on an all-too-regular basis and just telling people to “drive to the conditions” is worthy, but lame. 

Do you know what the most pointless piece of road safety advice is? Drive to the conditions.&nbsp;
I get it and it’s well-meaning. But it’s pointless. A waste of breath. Because some people are incapable of doing it.&nbsp;
And it would seem from some of the reports in the past 24 hours about those two buses which went off the road yesterday on the Twizel-Tekapo highway after hitting black ice, that perhaps the drivers of those buses knew nothing about how you should be driving in sub-zero temperatures. &nbsp;
So they either didn’t know how to drive to the conditions - or just didn’t care. &nbsp;
This isn’t a one-off, either, by the way, and, I reckon the time has come for us to stop mucking around with this “drive to the conditions” nonsense and do one of two things.&nbsp;
We either follow the lead of some European countries and make winter tyres mandatory on all vehicles. Or, as soon as we know temperatures are going to be sub-zero where there’s a state highway, we close the road. We don’t wait around until the road is frozen over and it’s too late.&nbsp;
I see the guy in charge of the bus company involved in yesterday’s crashes is disputing any suggestion that they were going too fast.&nbsp; He would say that, though, wouldn’t he?&nbsp;
It’s not like he’s going to come out and say ‘oh yeah, those muppets I pay to drive my buses have got no idea about driving to the conditions’.&nbsp;
So, instead of relying on some bus company owner in Auckland, I’m going to give more credence to the eyewitness account of a chap by the name of Tony McClelland, who was on the road at the time. I bet he isn’t buying what the bus company guy is saying, either. &nbsp;
He was driving from Christchurch to Omarama. And he’s been in the news saying that the road conditions on that highway yesterday morning were the worst he’s ever seen.&nbsp;
He hit black ice himself near Tekapo Airport, nearly lost control of his van and almost ended up in a ditch. So he called the police and asked them to close the road.&nbsp;
Here’s a quote from what he’s saying: “You're looking at minus-5, minus-4 degrees, foggy conditions - that State Highway should have been closed. No doubt and it wasn't. There's just a big black sign up by the airfield saying 'dangerous conditions, black ice'. That's how people die." &nbsp;
Thankfully, no one did die. One person has serious injuries and two others have moderate injuries. And thank goodness those buses ended-up where they did - off the road and not in the middle of it.&nbsp;
But back to Tony McLelland. Once he’d called the cops, asking them to close the road, he thought about turning back but decided to press-on. But he stuck to 60kph. And it wasn’t long after that that he saw these two buses “flying out of the fog”. That’s what he’s saying.&nbsp;
And here’s how he describes what he saw. "They were not doing 60. They were not doing 80. They were doing at least 100, probably a little bit more."&nbsp;
And he obviously drives that road quite a bit, because he says it’s not uncommon to see drivers hoofing along at 100 kph during winter, when there’s black ice on the road.&nbsp;
But this sort of nutbar driving happens everywhere. Less than two weeks ago, police caught a driver doing 134 kph in icy, foggy conditions on the road to Aoraki/Mt Cook - with the whole family on board.&nbsp;
This was on State Highway 80. It was around minus-3.&nbsp;
The day after that, the police came out with a warning, saying the number of people driving at “horrendous” speeds in winter conditions is appalling.&nbsp;
Over a two-week period, 26 people had been caught doing speeds over 120 kph in icy conditions. &nbsp;
So what happened yesterday isn’t an isolated one-off. It’s happening on an all-too-regular basis and just telling people to “drive to the conditions” is worthy, but lame.&nbsp;

Best of 2024: John MacDonald - This is the most pointless piece of road safety advice

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/360b5377-e057-48bb-aed8-b256014c3aed/transcript

If you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - think again. 

 It’s one of many plans that are part of this overall 25-year strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. The big strategy was launched in 2021, which means it’s got about 22 years to run. 

 It’s got a big price tag too, the long-term strategy that is. $1.3 billion. And, as part of this latest action plan, the Government’s going to review how the money is being spent to make sure it’s focused and streamlined to make sure that every dollar being spent is making a difference. 

 As for the goal of eliminating family violence and sexual violence by 2046, I think the harsh reality is that we’ll never eliminate it. But I’m not saying that we shouldn’t bother trying. 

I’m sure that if we spoke to someone involved in trying to end violence, they would say that the 25-year strategy is “aspirational”. They’d tell us that it’s something to aim for - which is better than the alternative. Which is doing nothing. 

And I’d agree with that. The question, though, is what you do to try and get somewhere towards eliminating violence. 

Which is why I said before, if you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - or nothing to do with you - then you need to think again. 

The obvious thing you can take from that is that we are all potential victims but also instigators of violence. 

You’ll know as well as I do that it’s not just people in certain parts of town who are at risk. Violence is everywhere. There’s violence in houses with kids' bikes and toys outside. There’s violence in houses where the cops turn up every now and then to have a word. But there’s also violence in houses with beautiful hedging and front gates that only open when someone presses a button. 

Physical violence, sexual violence, verbal violence, psychological violence. 

And if it isn’t you who has experienced some or all of those things. There’s a pretty good chance that someone you know has. 

It might be a friend, a relative, or that really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling.     

That friend, relative, or really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling could also be the one being violent behind those closed doors. 

Which is why this plan announced yesterday - and the bigger picture strategy that it's part of - will only achieve something if we do our bit. 

And when it comes down to it, doing our bit is pretty easy. It isn’t necessarily comfortable or pleasant or convenient. Because, doing our bit to reduce all kinds of violence, requires us to give a damn. 

It requires us to listen out for those raised voices across the fence. It requires us to do more than just shrug our shoulders and say “oh they’re at it again”. 

It requires us to run the risk of losing friendships or straining family relationships. Because if someone is picked up for acting violently or aggressively, I bet it must be damn embarrassing. 

Not to mention the fact that it can be very easy sometimes to convince ourselves that doing something or intervening will only make things worse for the person suffering the violent abuse.  

You know: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, he’ll just get more fired and up and then she’ll really wear it.” 

Or: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, there’ll be a rock through our window tonight.” 

See what I mean? But I genuinely believe that, if this stuff the Government’s going to do has any chance of succeeding, then we need to stop being a nation of scaredy cats. 

And I’m including myself there. Because there have probably been countless times where I’ve turned a blind eye or considered myself too busy - or any of the millions of excuses we can be very good at coming up with to avoid “getting involved”. 

“That yelling next door’s been going on for quite some time now - maybe I should poke my head in. But if I don’t get to the supermarket, there’ll be nothing for the lunches.” 

Driving home late at night. “That young woman back there looked pretty drunk - she probably shouldn’t be out on her own like that. Maybe I should go back and check on her. But I’ve got an early start. Need to get some sleep.”  

Time and time and time again we come up with excuses not to do anything. And that is what needs to change. 

For me, that is the one big thing we could all do to really make a difference and to give this 25-year plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence by 2046 some chance of success. 

LISTEN ABOVE

If you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - think again.&nbsp;
&nbsp;It’s one of many plans that are part of this overall 25-year strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. The big strategy was launched in 2021, which means it’s got about 22 years to run.&nbsp;
&nbsp;It’s got a big price tag too, the long-term strategy that is. $1.3 billion. And, as part of this latest action plan, the Government’s going to review how the money is being spent to make sure it’s focused and streamlined to make sure that every dollar being spent is making a difference.&nbsp;
&nbsp;As for the goal of eliminating family violence and sexual violence by 2046, I think the harsh reality is that we’ll never eliminate it. But I’m not saying that we shouldn’t bother trying.&nbsp;
I’m sure that if we spoke to someone involved in trying to end violence, they would say that the 25-year strategy is “aspirational”. They’d tell us that it’s something to aim for - which is better than the alternative. Which is doing nothing.&nbsp;
And I’d agree with that. The question, though, is what you do to try and get somewhere towards eliminating violence.&nbsp;
Which is why I said before, if you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - or nothing to do with you - then you need to think again.&nbsp;
The obvious thing you can take from that is that we are all potential victims but also instigators of violence.&nbsp;
You’ll know as well as I do that it’s not just people in certain parts of town who are at risk. Violence is everywhere. There’s violence in houses with kids' bikes and toys outside. There’s violence in houses where the cops turn up every now and then to have a word. But there’s also violence in houses with beautiful hedging and front gates that only open when someone presses a button.&nbsp;
Physical violence, sexual violence, verbal violence, psychological violence.&nbsp;
And if it isn’t you who has experienced some or all of those things. There’s a pretty good chance that someone you know has.&nbsp;
It might be a friend, a relative, or that really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
That friend, relative, or really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling could also be the one being violent behind those closed doors.&nbsp;
Which is why this plan announced yesterday - and the bigger picture strategy that it's part of - will only achieve something if we do our bit.&nbsp;
And when it comes down to it, doing our bit is pretty easy. It isn’t necessarily comfortable or pleasant or convenient. Because, doing our bit to reduce all kinds of violence, requires us to give a damn.&nbsp;
It requires us to listen out for those raised voices across the fence. It requires us to do more than just shrug our shoulders and say “oh they’re at it again”.&nbsp;
It requires us to run the risk of losing friendships or straining family relationships. Because if someone is picked up for acting violently or aggressively, I bet it must be damn embarrassing.&nbsp;
Not to mention the fact that it can be very easy sometimes to convince ourselves that doing something or intervening will only make things worse for the person suffering the violent abuse. &nbsp;
You know: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, he’ll just get more fired and up and then she’ll really wear it.”&nbsp;
Or: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, there’ll be a rock through our window tonight.”&nbsp;
See what I mean? But I genuinely believe that, if this stuff the Government’s going to do has any chance of succeeding, then we need to stop being a nation of scaredy cats.&nbsp;
And I’m including myself there. Because there have probably been countless times where I’ve turned a blind eye or considered myself too busy - or any of the millions of excuses we can be very good at coming up with to avoid “getting involved”.&nbsp;
“That yelling next door’s been going on for quite some time now - maybe I should poke my head in. But if I don’t get to the supermarket, there’ll be nothing for the lunches.”&nbsp;
Driving home late at night. “That young woman back there looked pretty drunk - she probably shouldn’t be out on her own like that. Maybe I should go back and check on her. But I’ve got an early start. Need to get some sleep.” &nbsp;
Time and time and time again we come up with excuses not to do anything. And that is what needs to change.&nbsp;
For me, that is the one big thing we could all do to really make a difference and to give this 25-year plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence by 2046 some chance of success.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Ending violence - a challenge for all of us

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/426f73e6-0268-4957-b259-b248000430ab/transcript

Even as a scooter rider, I think these motorcyclists who are kicking up a fuss about their ACC levies going through the roof don’t have a leg to stand on. 

It’s quite possible too that the motorbike guys will think that someone who rides a 2-stroke Vespa isn’t even a real motorcyclist.  

And they’re free to think that, but even though the ACC levy is going to increase by almost 80% over the next three years, you won’t find me running off to the Human Rights Commission.  

I’m not joking there either, because that’s exactly what Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand has done.   

So here are the numbers: in three years’ time the ACC levy for anyone who registers a motorbike will be $532. At the moment, it’s $297. So, yes, a truckload more money. It’s an increase of nearly 80%.  

And the motorbike people think they’re being unfairly targeted when you consider that the ACC levy for car drivers in that same three-year time period is going to go from $42 a year to $64 for drivers of petrol cars. For EV drivers, the levy will go from $42 a year to $122 a year.  

So the motorbike people have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, saying it isn’t fair that they’ll be paying more than $800 a year when car drivers will only be paying a maximum of $122 a year.  

They say it would be much fairer if everyone just paid a flat rate of $140, but I disagree.   

In their complaint to the Human Rights Commission, they say that as a minority group of New Zealand citizens, motorcyclists are being unfairly singled-out and the increases will particularly affect people on low incomes who rely on motorbikes as an affordable form of transport.  

Here’s a quote from their submission: “Although motorcyclists only account for only 0.26 percent of all ACC accident claims, they bear a disproportionately high financial burden.”  

So you look at that stat, and it could be very easy to think that they have a good point. If so few ACC claims are being made by motorcyclists, why are they paying way more than other people on the road? But it’s not about the number of crashes - it’s about the severity of the injuries.  

For me, it comes down to the fact that —when you’re on the road on two wheels— you are at so much more risk. And I don’t have a stat to back this up but I bet you that when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash, chances are they require a lot more medical care than someone in a car.  

That’s what ACC itself says too – it says the cost to the country of motorcycle accidents is extremely expensive.  

This is because of the kinds of injuries someone can get if they’re on a motorbike and get involved in a crash.  

And, unfortunately, a lot of the time those crashes aren’t caused by the motorcyclists themselves, they’re caused by muppets in cars and other vehicles.  

If you’ve ever ridden a motorbike or a scooter, you’ll know how key it is to make sure that other drivers have seen you. Example: when you’re heading down the road on your motorbike and there’s a car approaching an intersection on your left.  

You can never be sure they’ve seen you unless you catch their eye. I do it every time, try to make sure I catch their eye. Always have. Because, quite often, what I find is that the car driver at the intersection is actually looking beyond you.   

They’re looking out for larger vehicles and they can completely miss you.  

Not that us motorbike and scooter riders are completely innocent, either. I don’t know how many times I’ve given into the temptation —when traffic’s at a standstill— to undertake, and ride through the space to the left of the built-up traffic.  

I don’t know how many times I’ve said to myself I’m never doing that again and I have done it again.  

Nevertheless, riding a motorbike or a motor scooter is not compulsory. It is a choice. It is a choice that motorcyclists make knowing full well that riding on two-wheels is way riskier than riding on two wheels.  

And, because we acknowledge that risk, we also need to accept that if we come to grief, chances are we’re going to need more support from the health system.  

And, because of that, we have no reason to complain about paying higher ACC levies than other road users.  

Even as a scooter rider, I think these motorcyclists who are kicking up a fuss about their ACC levies going through the roof don’t have a leg to stand on.&nbsp;
It’s quite possible too that the motorbike guys will think that someone who rides a 2-stroke Vespa isn’t even a real motorcyclist. &nbsp;
And they’re free to think that, but even though the ACC levy is going to increase by almost 80% over the next three years, you won’t find me running off to the Human Rights Commission. &nbsp;
I’m not joking there either, because that’s exactly what Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand has done. &nbsp;&nbsp;
So here are the numbers: in three years’ time the ACC levy for anyone who registers a motorbike will be $532. At the moment, it’s $297. So, yes, a truckload more money. It’s an increase of nearly 80%. &nbsp;
And the motorbike people think they’re being unfairly targeted when you consider that the ACC levy for car drivers in that same three-year time period is going to go from $42 a year to $64 for drivers of petrol cars. For EV drivers, the levy will go from $42 a year to $122 a year. &nbsp;
So the motorbike people have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, saying it isn’t fair that they’ll be paying more than $800 a year when car drivers will only be paying a maximum of $122 a year. &nbsp;
They say it would be much fairer if everyone just paid a flat rate of $140, but I disagree. &nbsp;&nbsp;
In their complaint to the Human Rights Commission, they say that as a minority group of New Zealand citizens, motorcyclists are being unfairly singled-out and the increases will particularly affect people on low incomes who rely on motorbikes as an affordable form of transport. &nbsp;
Here’s a quote from their submission: “Although motorcyclists only account for only 0.26 percent of all ACC accident claims, they bear a disproportionately high financial burden.” &nbsp;
So you look at that stat, and it could be very easy to think that they have a good point. If so few ACC claims are being made by motorcyclists, why are they paying way more than other people on the road? But it’s not about the number of crashes - it’s about the severity of the injuries. &nbsp;
For me, it comes down to the fact that —when you’re on the road on two wheels— you are at so much more risk. And I don’t have a stat to back this up but I bet you that when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash, chances are they require a lot more medical care than someone in a car. &nbsp;
That’s what ACC itself says too – it says the cost to the country of motorcycle accidents is extremely expensive. &nbsp;
This is because of the kinds of injuries someone can get if they’re on a motorbike and get involved in a crash. &nbsp;
And, unfortunately, a lot of the time those crashes aren’t caused by the motorcyclists themselves, they’re caused by muppets in cars and other vehicles. &nbsp;
If you’ve ever ridden a motorbike or a scooter, you’ll know how key it is to make sure that other drivers have seen you. Example: when you’re heading down the road on your motorbike and there’s a car approaching an intersection on your left. &nbsp;
You can never be sure they’ve seen you unless you catch their eye. I do it every time, try to make sure I catch their eye. Always have. Because, quite often, what I find is that the car driver at the intersection is actually looking beyond you. &nbsp;&nbsp;
They’re looking out for larger vehicles and they can completely miss you. &nbsp;
Not that us motorbike and scooter riders are completely innocent, either. I don’t know how many times I’ve given into the temptation —when traffic’s at a standstill— to undertake, and ride through the space to the left of the built-up traffic. &nbsp;
I don’t know how many times I’ve said to myself I’m never doing that again and I have done it again. &nbsp;
Nevertheless, riding a motorbike or a motor scooter is not compulsory. It is a choice. It is a choice that motorcyclists make knowing full well that riding on two-wheels is way riskier than riding on two wheels. &nbsp;
And, because we acknowledge that risk, we also need to accept that if we come to grief, chances are we’re going to need more support from the health system. &nbsp;
And, because of that, we have no reason to complain about paying higher ACC levies than other road users. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: Motorcyclist ACC levies a human rights issue? Really?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/2d649f28-384e-4a71-beb8-b2450006d1c9/transcript

Chris Luxon: Rātana and Co-governance

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips