ACT Party leader and Acting Prime Minister David Seymour joined John MacDonald in the studio.

They discussed his idea of a smartphone ban for under-16-year-olds, Paul Henry throwing his hat into the ring for ACT, and Seymour's views on the Government’s school lunch programme.

LISTEN ABOVE

ACT Party leader and Acting Prime Minister David Seymour joined John MacDonald in the studio.
They discussed his idea of a smartphone ban for under-16-year-olds, Paul Henry throwing his hat into the ring for ACT, and Seymour's views on the Government’s school lunch programme.
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

David Seymour on his smart phone ban idea, Paul Henry's candidacy, and school lunches

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6e84f29c-54da-4815-b8dc-b4890012fc3b/transcript

The political angst over kids on social media has gone next level with this idea David Seymour is pushing today.

He’s saying that, instead of banning kids under-16 from social media, we could just ban them from having smartphones.

Quite rightly, he thinks it would be too easy for kids to get around a social media ban, that the likes of National are in favour of.

And I couldn’t agree with him more on that.

But banning kids from having a smartphone? Dream on!

At least with the social media ban idea, it sounds good on paper. And only on paper.

But trying to ban kids from having a smartphone doesn’t even sound good on paper.

I’m not sure what David Seymour is trying to do here. If he just doesn’t support a social media ban, leave it at that.

Because we know already that it isn’t working in Australia.

In just the past week, we’ve found out that over there it’s failed at the first hurdle.

Because the social media companies aren’t even complying with the requirement to check the ages of new users.

As I’ve said all along, we should - at the very least - be waiting for this experiment in Australia to show some positive results before we start going down the same track.

But it won’t work. The early results show that. And we shouldn’t be thinking it would work any better here.

Because the horse has already bolted. And the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that’s what happens in the online world and the technology world.

Kids under 16 wouldn’t just use virtual private networks to access their social media accounts. There’d be some kids who would create their own social media platforms. That’s how it is.

And don’t just listen to me. Listen to experts from Queensland University who say banning under-16s from social media is a pipedream.

They say there is insufficient evidence to show social media is responsible for the increase in youth mental health problems. They say some marginalised young people actually benefit from social media. Example: I remember hearing someone who works with young members of the Rainbow community saying that social media can be really valuable for the kids he works with.

These researchers in Australia also say there is a lack of clarity as to what social media actually is. For example, are all those WhatsApp groups you’re part of, are they social media?

David Seymour needs to forget about this idea of the government coming in and telling kids they’re not allowed to have a smartphone. Because, just like the kids using VPNs to access social media if they were banned from using it in New Zealand, they’d also get around a smartphone ban. Because it wouldn’t stop them using their laptops and tablets.

So it’s a weird idea David Seymour is floating today. The fact that it’s coming from someone who is all for personal freedoms and liberties, makes it even weirder.

LISTEN ABOVE

The political angst over kids on social media has gone next level with this idea David Seymour is pushing today.
He’s saying that, instead of banning kids under-16 from social media, we could just ban them from having smartphones.
Quite rightly, he thinks it would be too easy for kids to get around a social media ban, that the likes of National are in favour of.
And I couldn’t agree with him more on that.
But banning kids from having a smartphone? Dream on!
At least with the social media ban idea, it sounds good on paper. And only on paper.
But trying to ban kids from having a smartphone doesn’t even sound good on paper.
I’m not sure what David Seymour is trying to do here. If he just doesn’t support a social media ban, leave it at that.
Because we know already that it isn’t working in Australia.
In just the past week, we’ve found out that over there it’s failed at the first hurdle.
Because the social media companies aren’t even complying with the requirement to check the ages of new users.
As I’ve said all along, we should - at the very least - be waiting for this experiment in Australia to show some positive results before we start going down the same track.
But it won’t work. The early results show that. And we shouldn’t be thinking it would work any better here.
Because the horse has already bolted. And the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that’s what happens in the online world and the technology world.
Kids under 16 wouldn’t just use virtual private networks to access their social media accounts. There’d be some kids who would create their own social media platforms. That’s how it is.
And don’t just listen to me. Listen to experts from Queensland University who say banning under-16s from social media is a pipedream.
They say there is insufficient evidence to show social media is responsible for the increase in youth mental health problems. They say some marginalised young people actually benefit from social media. Example: I remember hearing someone who works with young members of the Rainbow community saying that social media can be really valuable for the kids he works with.
These researchers in Australia also say there is a lack of clarity as to what social media actually is. For example, are all those WhatsApp groups you’re part of, are they social media?
David Seymour needs to forget about this idea of the government coming in and telling kids they’re not allowed to have a smartphone. Because, just like the kids using VPNs to access social media if they were banned from using it in New Zealand, they’d also get around a smartphone ban. Because it wouldn’t stop them using their laptops and tablets.
So it’s a weird idea David Seymour is floating today. The fact that it’s coming from someone who is all for personal freedoms and liberties, makes it even weirder.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Banning smartphones? Good luck with that one

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/98e8627b-a6c1-413e-89e1-b489000d7173/transcript

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger has pushed back on a Councillor's suggestion the city's relationship with central government is failing.

Heathcote Councillor Nathaniel Herz Jardine says the council is still waiting for a reply after writing to South Island Minister James Meager in February.

According to Herz Jardine, the lack of communication is creating uncertainty around infrastructure planning and future collaboration with the Government.

However, Mauger says those concerns are overstated.

Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, he described the comments as "bollocks" and said he speaks with Meager "from time-to-time".

"We're doing okay and I don't want Christchurch to be seen as greedy buggers."

Finance Minister Nicola Willis claimed last month the Christchurch City Council did not ask for anything in this year's Budget and that was why it missed out on funding.

Mauger also discussed the council's proposal for an additional glass recycling bin, local government amalgamation, and the Government's plans to shift responsibility for climate adaptation planning to councils.

LISTEN ABOVE

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger has pushed back on a Councillor's suggestion the city's relationship with central government is failing.
Heathcote Councillor Nathaniel Herz Jardine says the council is still waiting for a reply after writing to South Island Minister James Meager in February.
According to Herz Jardine, the lack of communication is creating uncertainty around infrastructure planning and future collaboration with the Government.
However, Mauger says those concerns are overstated.
Speaking to Canterbury Mornings, he described the comments as "bollocks" and said he speaks with Meager "from time-to-time".
"We're doing okay and I don't want Christchurch to be seen as greedy buggers."
Finance Minister Nicola Willis claimed last month the Christchurch City Council did not ask for anything in this year's Budget and that was why it missed out on funding.
Mauger also discussed the council's proposal for an additional glass recycling bin, local government amalgamation, and the Government's plans to shift responsibility for climate adaptation planning to councils.
<p style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; -webkit-user-drag: none; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; overflow-wrap: break-word; vertical-align: baseline; font-kerning: none; background-color: transparent; color: windowtext; text-align: left;">LISTEN ABOVE

Phil Mauger on central government relations, amalgamation, and climate adaption plans

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1a96efeb-130e-461e-b7bb-b4880173404d/transcript

Paul Henry is everything Christopher Luxon isn't. He’s everything Chris Hipkins isn’t. He’s everything his potential new boss, ACT leader David Seymour, isn’t.

Which is why his announcement that he’s standing in this year’s election has taken a lot of people by surprise. And has got some people excited.

But aren’t we over celebrity politicians? I certainly am.

Nevertheless, if there was a political party in New Zealand that Paul Henry might be a good fit for, philosophically, it would be the ACT Party.

But is he a good fit for Parliament? Or is Parliament a good fit for him?

Or, more to the point - is this personality and wit that people are talking about - are they the kinds of things we need in our politicians right now?

I don’t think so.

It’s what the ACT Party needs right now. Because, of the three parties in the current coalition government, it needs a bit of a boost.

And there’s no doubt that Paul Henry’s announcement has put the spotlight on the ACT Party.

But, a lot of the time, publicity doesn’t lead to substance or delivery.

Take Jacinda Ardern, when she became leader of the Labour Party just weeks out from the 2017 election, she was a publicity darling.

She was someone who could spin a good yarn. A great communicator, as they say. But we all got sick of that.

And, as Thomas Coughlan points out in the NZ Herald, Paul Henry’s announcement yesterday was a communications “masterclass”.

Thomas writes: “After a brief introduction from Seymour, Henry gave probably one of the best ‘new job’ press conferences since Dame Jacinda Ardern’s famous 2017 effort after becoming Labour leader.”

He does point out, though, that there were some differences.

Yesterday, Paul Henry wasn’t facing the full gallery of political journalists. He didn’t need to defend any policies. And he didn’t have to look like he could credibly be Prime Minister in a matter of weeks.

Nevertheless, he made a good fist of it. Which you would expect from someone who’s been in the public eye for yonks. Who is well used to talking about himself in front of an audience and who has a truckload of experience in the live broadcast environment. Where you have to think on your feet all the time.

No wonder David Seymour and the ACT Party welcomed him with open arms. Because they need him way more than he needs them. And he has said as much.

But I thought, after the Jacinda Ardern experience, that we were over celebrity politicians.

I certainly am. Which is why I can’t get excited about Paul Henry potentially being in Parliament after this year’s election.

Because I don’t care about charisma. All I care about is substance.

LISTEN ABOVE

Paul Henry is everything Christopher Luxon isn't. He’s everything Chris Hipkins isn’t. He’s everything his potential new boss, ACT leader David Seymour, isn’t.
Which is why his announcement that he’s standing in this year’s election has taken a lot of people by surprise. And has got some people excited.
But aren’t we over celebrity politicians? I certainly am.
Nevertheless, if there was a political party in New Zealand that Paul Henry might be a good fit for, philosophically, it would be the ACT Party.
But is he a good fit for Parliament? Or is Parliament a good fit for him?
Or, more to the point - is this personality and wit that people are talking about - are they the kinds of things we need in our politicians right now?
I don’t think so.
It’s what the ACT Party needs right now. Because, of the three parties in the current coalition government, it needs a bit of a boost.
And there’s no doubt that Paul Henry’s announcement has put the spotlight on the ACT Party.
But, a lot of the time, publicity doesn’t lead to substance or delivery.
Take Jacinda Ardern, when she became leader of the Labour Party just weeks out from the 2017 election, she was a publicity darling.
She was someone who could spin a good yarn. A great communicator, as they say. But we all got sick of that.
And, as Thomas Coughlan points out in the NZ Herald, Paul Henry’s announcement yesterday was a communications “masterclass”.
Thomas writes: “After a brief introduction from Seymour, Henry gave probably one of the best ‘new job’ press conferences since Dame Jacinda Ardern’s famous 2017 effort after becoming Labour leader.”
He does point out, though, that there were some differences.
Yesterday, Paul Henry wasn’t facing the full gallery of political journalists. He didn’t need to defend any policies. And he didn’t have to look like he could credibly be Prime Minister in a matter of weeks.
Nevertheless, he made a good fist of it. Which you would expect from someone who’s been in the public eye for yonks. Who is well used to talking about himself in front of an audience and who has a truckload of experience in the live broadcast environment. Where you have to think on your feet all the time.
No wonder David Seymour and the ACT Party welcomed him with open arms. Because they need him way more than he needs them. And he has said as much.
But I thought, after the Jacinda Ardern experience, that we were over celebrity politicians.
I certainly am. Which is why I can’t get excited about Paul Henry potentially being in Parliament after this year’s election.
Because I don’t care about charisma. All I care about is substance.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: I thought we were over celebrity politicians

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/39ff4cec-b079-4f66-ab84-b488002c0774/transcript

David Seymour on his smart phone ban idea, Paul Henry's candidacy, and school lunches

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips