Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup.

The Mayor gives his thoughts on whether Orana Wildlife Park is in trouble, and how he feels about the council funding for it now.

And, what is the cost to council for the use of road cones in Christchurch? And will he be standing for Mayor in next year's local elections?

LISTEN ABOVE

Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup. 
The Mayor gives his thoughts on whether Orana Wildlife Park is in trouble, and how he feels about the council funding for it now. 
And, what is the cost to council for the use of road cones in Christchurch? And will he be standing for Mayor in next year's local elections? 
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

Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayor on Orana Wildlife Park, cost of road cones, and next year's local elections

The Christchurch City Council has learned nothing from the cathedral debacle.

Because it’s now going to spend $19.5 million over the next four years, so that work can start on repairing and restoring the old provincial chambers building in the centre of town. 

$19.5 million. Nearly twice as much ratepayer money as what was going to go into the cathedral. To get things started on a repair job which is expected to cost around $200 million. 

I get it. It's got history. It's very relevant in terms of the history of Canterbury. It’s a beautiful building. No arguments from me on those fronts.

But, as far as I’m concerned, the council shouldn't be pouring money into what could turn out to be a rinse and repeat of the cathedral debacle. 

The building itself dates back to 1858 and is the only purpose-built provincial government building that still exists in New Zealand. 

It was originally built to be the headquarters of what was known back then as the Canterbury Provincial Government. But when the provincial government was disestablished in 1876, it was used as offices for various government departments. 

Eventually, the Christchurch City Council became responsible for it. Pre-earthquakes, it was a popular spot for weddings and functions. But that all came to a stop and it’s just sat there since 2011.

But in the Council’s new 10-year plan, it’s going to spend $500,000 in the next 12 months; $4.5 million the year after that; another $4.5 million the year after that; and $10 million the year after that.

So, over four years, that’s $19.5 million. And the purpose of that spend is so that work can start. So that work can start on something that’s expected to cost 10-times that.

When is the council going to learn not to throw millions of dollars at something that has next to zero certainty of getting finished?

Because $19.5 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the money that’s going to be needed. Somewhere in the ballpark of another $180 million is going to be needed.

But, just like happened with the cathedral, money’s going to be chipped-in here and chipped-in there on some sort of wing and a prayer that the rest of it will come from somewhere.

Now, to be fair, there’s possibly a greater likelihood of the Government helping out on this one. But it won’t be to the tune of $180 million.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis justified the Government’s decision not to bail-out the cathedral reinstatement because it considered the cathedral not to be owned by the public and that its public use was limited because it is a private, religious space.

You might also recall her saying a few weeks back that the Canterbury Museum redevelopment - which is also underway and also short of all the money needed - might be more likely to get government support because it is a place used by the general public.

Nevertheless, here we go again, with the city council pouring ratepayer money into a project that could very well end up lingering. Just like the cathedral.

It's especially bad when you consider how tight it was with funding for the Arts Centre. Which is actually up and running and open for business. And is actually making a contribution to the city economically.

The Arts Centre wanted $20 million in council support over the next 10 years. But it only got $6 million.

And instead, the Council’s going to pour $19.5 million into getting repairs underway on the old provincial chambers building with what, seems to be, no idea where the rest of the money is going to come from.

It is a ludicrous and irresponsible way to spend ratepayer money.

LISTEN ABOVE

The Christchurch City Council has learned nothing from the cathedral debacle. 
Because it’s now going to spend $19.5 million over the next four years, so that work can start on repairing and restoring the old provincial chambers building in the centre of town.  
$19.5 million. Nearly twice as much ratepayer money as what was going to go into the cathedral. To get things started on a repair job which is expected to cost around $200 million.  
I get it. It's got history. It's very relevant in terms of the history of Canterbury. It’s a beautiful building. No arguments from me on those fronts. 
But, as far as I’m concerned, the council shouldn't be pouring money into what could turn out to be a rinse and repeat of the cathedral debacle.  
The building itself dates back to 1858 and is the only purpose-built provincial government building that still exists in New Zealand.  
It was originally built to be the headquarters of what was known back then as the Canterbury Provincial Government. But when the provincial government was disestablished in 1876, it was used as offices for various government departments.  
Eventually, the Christchurch City Council became responsible for it. Pre-earthquakes, it was a popular spot for weddings and functions. But that all came to a stop and it’s just sat there since 2011. 
But in the Council’s new 10-year plan, it’s going to spend $500,000 in the next 12 months; $4.5 million the year after that; another $4.5 million the year after that; and $10 million the year after that. 
So, over four years, that’s $19.5 million. And the purpose of that spend is so that work can start. So that work can start on something that’s expected to cost 10-times that. 
When is the council going to learn not to throw millions of dollars at something that has next to zero certainty of getting finished? 
Because $19.5 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the money that’s going to be needed. Somewhere in the ballpark of another $180 million is going to be needed. 
But, just like happened with the cathedral, money’s going to be chipped-in here and chipped-in there on some sort of wing and a prayer that the rest of it will come from somewhere. 
Now, to be fair, there’s possibly a greater likelihood of the Government helping out on this one. But it won’t be to the tune of $180 million. 
Finance Minister Nicola Willis justified the Government’s decision not to bail-out the cathedral reinstatement because it considered the cathedral not to be owned by the public and that its public use was limited because it is a private, religious space. 
You might also recall her saying a few weeks back that the Canterbury Museum redevelopment - which is also underway and also short of all the money needed - might be more likely to get government support because it is a place used by the general public. 
Nevertheless, here we go again, with the city council pouring ratepayer money into a project that could very well end up lingering. Just like the cathedral. 
It's especially bad when you consider how tight it was with funding for the Arts Centre. Which is actually up and running and open for business. And is actually making a contribution to the city economically. 
The Arts Centre wanted $20 million in council support over the next 10 years. But it only got $6 million. 
And instead, the Council’s going to pour $19.5 million into getting repairs underway on the old provincial chambers building with what, seems to be, no idea where the rest of the money is going to come from. 
It is a ludicrous and irresponsible way to spend ratepayer money. 
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: More ludicrous council spending in Christchurch

I’m glad I’m not working in the health system. Not that I’d be much use if I was, I’ve never been that great with blood. 

But the reason I’m glad I’m not a doctor or a nurse or a GP or a specialist, is the big stick that’s being pointed at all those people by the Government with its new targets.

If I was starting a shift on a ward somewhere right now, I’d be thinking ‘here we go again’. Another government treating health as if it’s a factory. And only doing it to look good for the people on the sidelines, not the ones in there doing the doing.

And it’s not just this government, governments have done it for years. Tinkering with waiting lists. Promising big spend-ups but not delivering. Labour’s done it, National’s done it, now the coalition’s doing it.

And the reason they do it is because they think we are sucked-in by all this serious-face, performance indicator stuff. When all it does is set us up for disappointment and makes the people who do all the amazing work in our health system feel like they’re nothing more than political puppets.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for trying to do things better. And I’m all for trying to be as successful as you can be in something, but knowing what's expected of you and how it’s going to be measured is just part of it.

The ones demanding the performance also need to ask the ones responsible for delivery what they need to make it happen. Something the doctors and nurses and GPs and specialists aren’t being asked by this government and haven’t been asked by any government – all they’re told is ‘do better, do better’. 

And today they’re being told that 90 percent of cancer patients have to start getting treatment within a month; that 95 percent of kids have to be fully immunised by the time they’re two; that 95 percent of people who turn up to an emergency department have to be treated, discharged or transferred somewhere else within six hours; and that 95 percent of people can’t be left waiting longer than four months for elective surgery.

Which all sounds brilliant. It all looks good on paper, but there’s no more money coming to make it happen. 

But Health Minister Shane Reti seems to think that’s not going to be too much of a problem. The likes of the nurses union, though, disagrees - saying the health system is just being set-up for failure. Again. And I agree.

I’m glad I’m not working in the health system. Not that I’d be much use if I was, I’ve never been that great with blood.  
But the reason I’m glad I’m not a doctor or a nurse or a GP or a specialist, is the big stick that’s being pointed at all those people by the Government with its new targets. 
If I was starting a shift on a ward somewhere right now, I’d be thinking ‘here we go again’. Another government treating health as if it’s a factory. And only doing it to look good for the people on the sidelines, not the ones in there doing the doing. 
And it’s not just this government, governments have done it for years. Tinkering with waiting lists. Promising big spend-ups but not delivering. Labour’s done it, National’s done it, now the coalition’s doing it. 
And the reason they do it is because they think we are sucked-in by all this serious-face, performance indicator stuff. When all it does is set us up for disappointment and makes the people who do all the amazing work in our health system feel like they’re nothing more than political puppets. 
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for trying to do things better. And I’m all for trying to be as successful as you can be in something, but knowing what's expected of you and how it’s going to be measured is just part of it. 
The ones demanding the performance also need to ask the ones responsible for delivery what they need to make it happen. Something the doctors and nurses and GPs and specialists aren’t being asked by this government and haven’t been asked by any government – all they’re told is ‘do better, do better’.  
And today they’re being told that 90 percent of cancer patients have to start getting treatment within a month; that 95 percent of kids have to be fully immunised by the time they’re two; that 95 percent of people who turn up to an emergency department have to be treated, discharged or transferred somewhere else within six hours; and that 95 percent of people can’t be left waiting longer than four months for elective surgery. 
Which all sounds brilliant. It all looks good on paper, but there’s no more money coming to make it happen.  
But Health Minister Shane Reti seems to think that’s not going to be too much of a problem. The likes of the nurses union, though, disagrees - saying the health system is just being set-up for failure. Again. And I agree.

John MacDonald: I’m glad I’m not working in the health system

This is not the first time I’ve said this, but we are the people’s republic of pushovers, aren’t we? The way we give overseas visitors free ACC cover.

Even more so when you consider the news that ACC wants to increase its levies by two or three times the rate of inflation over the next three years because it's taking longer and costing more for people to recover from their injuries.

It's got a massive hole in its budget and your levies are going up, mine are going up, but your mate from the States who comes here and hurts themselves doing something gets free cover. And it has to stop.

Especially, when you consider that there are only two countries that do the same for us: Australia and the UK. 

But, you know, the argument against making people from overseas pay their way more will probably be similar to the argument against increasing the international visitor levy. That, if you make tourists pay for their own treatment if they injure themselves, they won’t come here. Which is just nonsense.

ACC Minister Matt Doocey is trotting-out the Government’s usual line about expecting ACC to “look at existing costs within the scheme to ensure that any levy increase is absolutely justified before final decisions are made.

“The Government's expectation has been made clear to ACC that it must deliver greater value for the funds it receives. I am monitoring this very closely and will be ensuring ACC is improving its financial performance."

Which ACC is already doing. It’s been cutting staff numbers. Back in May, it announced plans to cut more than 300 jobs – about 10 percent of its workforce.

So ACC is already doing the cost-cutting the Government wants, but it also wants to charge more in levies.

And my view is that if those of us who live here in New Zealand are going to have to pay more, then we should have a re-think about how generous we are when it comes to people who don’t live here.

And I think we need to back ourselves and make visitors pay their way more.

The two approaches I think we could use are either effectively charging non-residents at the door when they need treatment. So they break a leg, head to the emergency department and, once they’ve got the plaster on and they’re ready to leave, they get the credit card out. Or we make it mandatory for anyone visiting New Zealand to have travel insurance. Because it isn’t at the moment.

If you’ve been overseas yourself, I bet you haven’t gone without travel insurance. That’s because we kind of expect or assume, don’t we, that if we need medical care while we’re away, it’s not going to be on the house. Unless it’s Australia or the UK that we’re visiting.

When I went to the UK three months ago, I still took out travel insurance. But I know that if I had had an accident while I was there, my insurance company would have made me take as much free stuff as possible before paying for anything.

And the same for people coming here from overseas. If they’ve got travel insurance, do you think their insurers will say “we'll pay for everything”? Of course not. They’ll say, ‘take the free stuff then come back to us if you need more’.

And that free stuff is what you and I pay for. And what ACC wants us to pay even more for.

This is not the first time I’ve said this, but we are the people’s republic of pushovers, aren’t we? The way we give overseas visitors free ACC cover. 
Even more so when you consider the news that ACC wants to increase its levies by two or three times the rate of inflation over the next three years because it's taking longer and costing more for people to recover from their injuries. 
It's got a massive hole in its budget and your levies are going up, mine are going up, but your mate from the States who comes here and hurts themselves doing something gets free cover. And it has to stop. 
Especially, when you consider that there are only two countries that do the same for us: Australia and the UK.  
But, you know, the argument against making people from overseas pay their way more will probably be similar to the argument against increasing the international visitor levy. That, if you make tourists pay for their own treatment if they injure themselves, they won’t come here. Which is just nonsense. 
ACC Minister Matt Doocey is trotting-out the Government’s usual line about expecting ACC to “look at existing costs within the scheme to ensure that any levy increase is absolutely justified before final decisions are made. 
“The Government's expectation has been made clear to ACC that it must deliver greater value for the funds it receives. I am monitoring this very closely and will be ensuring ACC is improving its financial performance." 
Which ACC is already doing. It’s been cutting staff numbers. Back in May, it announced plans to cut more than 300 jobs – about 10 percent of its workforce. 
So ACC is already doing the cost-cutting the Government wants, but it also wants to charge more in levies. 
And my view is that if those of us who live here in New Zealand are going to have to pay more, then we should have a re-think about how generous we are when it comes to people who don’t live here. 
And I think we need to back ourselves and make visitors pay their way more. 
The two approaches I think we could use are either effectively charging non-residents at the door when they need treatment. So they break a leg, head to the emergency department and, once they’ve got the plaster on and they’re ready to leave, they get the credit card out. Or we make it mandatory for anyone visiting New Zealand to have travel insurance. Because it isn’t at the moment. 
If you’ve been overseas yourself, I bet you haven’t gone without travel insurance. That’s because we kind of expect or assume, don’t we, that if we need medical care while we’re away, it’s not going to be on the house. Unless it’s Australia or the UK that we’re visiting. 
When I went to the UK three months ago, I still took out travel insurance. But I know that if I had had an accident while I was there, my insurance company would have made me take as much free stuff as possible before paying for anything. 
And the same for people coming here from overseas. If they’ve got travel insurance, do you think their insurers will say “we'll pay for everything”? Of course not. They’ll say, ‘take the free stuff then come back to us if you need more’. 
And that free stuff is what you and I pay for. And what ACC wants us to pay even more for.

Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayor on Orana Wildlife Park, cost of road cones, and next year's local elections

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips