Today on Politics Friday National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald to dive into this week’s biggest political stories.

Christchurch City Council will soon be making decisions surrounding the funding of the new stadium: should the $13 million price tag be paid by ratepayers? Or should the project be put on hold until NZTA can come up with the funding?

The Reserve Bank is looking into digital currency, is New Zealand ready to let go of cash? And what’s their thoughts on the huge number of job cuts sweeping through the public sector?

LISTEN ABOVE

Today on Politics Friday National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald to dive into this week’s biggest political stories. 
Christchurch City Council will soon be making decisions surrounding the funding of the new stadium: should the $13 million price tag be paid by ratepayers? Or should the project be put on hold until NZTA can come up with the funding? 
The Reserve Bank is looking into digital currency, is New Zealand ready to let go of cash? And what’s their thoughts on the huge number of job cuts sweeping through the public sector? 
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

Politics Friday: National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan on the funding of Christchurch's new stadium, digital currency, and the public sector cuts

David Seymour is a muppet. I bet that’s what the Prime Minister was thinking yesterday when reporters were asking him if he agreed with Seymour’s view that sushi is “woke”.

The ACT leader and the Associate Education Minister made the claim about sushi after he’d announced that the Government is revamping the school lunches programme by getting back to the basics, like sandwiches and fruit, and saving about $100 million in the process.

So out with the butter chicken and the hot meals, and in with the sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and I think the Government is making a big mistake. And I’ll tell you why.

I think it’s making a big mistake because I’m listening to what the people who really know a thing or two about this are saying. The people at the coalface. The principals and the teachers. 

I saw one principal on the news last night saying it might have been useful if David Seymour had spoken to them first about what was and wasn’t working before making these changes.

Another —Lianne Webb, Principal of Aorere College in Papatoetoe— says, for some students the lunch is their only meal of the day.

Which kind of stops me in my tracks because I’m as old school and I tend to think that if I grew up eating luncheon roll sandwiches for lunch when I was at school, why can’t other kids?

But then, on the other hand, if these lunches are the only meals some kids are getting then a sandwich and an apple at lunchtime isn’t going to cut it, is it? 

And I think what this all comes down to, is whether it is the job of the Government to feed kids full-stop, or just provide them with something to eat at lunchtime when they’re at school - or pre-school as well. Because that’s another change the Government is making. They’re also including some early childhood centres in the programme.

So, is it a school lunch programme? Or is it a ‘make sure these kids at least get something to eat’ programme? And, in my mind, even though I’m old school and even though a hot meal might seem over the top to most of us, I think we have to listen to what the schools are saying and accept that this is more than just feeding kids at lunchtime.    

As for the woke sushi thing, that all started with a social media post by the ACT Party which said the Government will be doing more with less money to feed kids fruit and sandwiches, not "woke food like quinoa and sushi.” 

And Seymour repeated it when he was talking to journalists at Parliament.

And, of course, what happened next was they all chased down the Prime Minister to see if he agreed with Seymour that sushi is woke.

Christopher Luxon tried to fob them off, but it was obvious that he thought Seymour had been a muppet. Eventually, though, he gave in and told the reporters that he doesn’t think sushi and quinoa are woke. 

But what David Seymour is missing, when he says that the school lunch programme will be delivering the type of lunch that 75% of kids get from home, is that they’re the ones who go home after school and do have an after-school snack and do have an evening meal.

The other kids don't, necessarily. And I think that’s it’s appalling the Government is turning its back on these kids - just to save a lousy $107 million.

David Seymour is a muppet. I bet that’s what the Prime Minister was thinking yesterday when reporters were asking him if he agreed with Seymour’s view that sushi is “woke”. 
The ACT leader and the Associate Education Minister made the claim about sushi after he’d announced that the Government is revamping the school lunches programme by getting back to the basics, like sandwiches and fruit, and saving about $100 million in the process. 
So out with the butter chicken and the hot meals, and in with the sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and I think the Government is making a big mistake. And I’ll tell you why. 
I think it’s making a big mistake because I’m listening to what the people who really know a thing or two about this are saying. The people at the coalface. The principals and the teachers.  
I saw one principal on the news last night saying it might have been useful if David Seymour had spoken to them first about what was and wasn’t working before making these changes. 
Another —Lianne Webb, Principal of Aorere College in Papatoetoe— says, for some students the lunch is their only meal of the day. 
Which kind of stops me in my tracks because I’m as old school and I tend to think that if I grew up eating luncheon roll sandwiches for lunch when I was at school, why can’t other kids? 
But then, on the other hand, if these lunches are the only meals some kids are getting then a sandwich and an apple at lunchtime isn’t going to cut it, is it?  
And I think what this all comes down to, is whether it is the job of the Government to feed kids full-stop, or just provide them with something to eat at lunchtime when they’re at school - or pre-school as well. Because that’s another change the Government is making. They’re also including some early childhood centres in the programme. 
So, is it a school lunch programme? Or is it a ‘make sure these kids at least get something to eat’ programme? And, in my mind, even though I’m old school and even though a hot meal might seem over the top to most of us, I think we have to listen to what the schools are saying and accept that this is more than just feeding kids at lunchtime.     
As for the woke sushi thing, that all started with a social media post by the ACT Party which said the Government will be doing more with less money to feed kids fruit and sandwiches, not "woke food like quinoa and sushi.”  
And Seymour repeated it when he was talking to journalists at Parliament. 
And, of course, what happened next was they all chased down the Prime Minister to see if he agreed with Seymour that sushi is woke. 
Christopher Luxon tried to fob them off, but it was obvious that he thought Seymour had been a muppet. Eventually, though, he gave in and told the reporters that he doesn’t think sushi and quinoa are woke.  
But what David Seymour is missing, when he says that the school lunch programme will be delivering the type of lunch that 75% of kids get from home, is that they’re the ones who go home after school and do have an after-school snack and do have an evening meal. 
The other kids don't, necessarily. And I think that’s it’s appalling the Government is turning its back on these kids - just to save a lousy $107 million.

John MacDonald: A sandwich for lunch is ok, if there's dinner too

How about this? I found myself agreeing this morning with someone who has been described as a racist dinosaur. To a point.

This lefty wokester, that some people seem to think I am, actually agrees with this Kings Council lawyer who disagrees with tikanga Māori being compulsory for students doing a law degree at university from next year.

I agree with someone who has been described as (quote) “a racist dinosaur who should quietly go and die in a corner”. How about that?

But to a point. That’s the key bit.

Gary Judd is his name. Or Gary Judd KC to be precise. And what he’s done, is he’s made a formal complaint to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee over this new requirement that’s due to come into force next year.

Now, for the purposes of this discussion, the general understanding of tikanga Māori is that it’s the way of doing things within Māori society.

So, it’s about principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge. The customary rules which govern Māori life. Broadly, it’s what’s known as customary law. Law based on customs. As opposed to common law. 

Gary Judd KC says tikanga actually has nothing to do with Common Law. And Winston Peters is an instant fan, saying that forcing law students to study tikanga Māori is just what he calls "woke indoctrination".

He says: “Law students should not be force-fed this kind of woke indoctrination from some culture warrior’s slanted version of what tikanga means.”

Which is kind of what Gary Judd KC is saying too. Although, the complaint he’s made to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee seems to be focussed on tikanga being what he calls “a belief system” and not what he calls a "proper law subject". 

And because he sees it as being a belief system, he doesn’t think it’s relevant to be a compulsory element of a law degree.

And I agree with him. On the compulsory bit.

But I think any law student worth their salt would be an idiot to think they can ignore tikanga. Which is why I think it should be voluntary, not compulsory.

And I say that because I think tikanga Māori is something of a horse that has already bolted. What I’m getting at there, is that Māori principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge can’t be ignored.

You might be someone who wants to ignore them. But if you’re happy living under a rock, then good luck to you.

But if someone reckons they’re going to make a good fist of being a lawyer in New Zealand in the 21st century, then they can forget about landing a job at any of the big law firms if they don’t understand Māori customary law. 

They can forget about getting involved in environmental law. They can certainly forget about becoming an in-house lawyer at any of the government departments, or local councils. They can forget about getting involved in criminal law.

That’s because Māori customary law —or tikanga— has become so entwined in our legal system.

If you want a recent and very local example, here it is: Peter Ellis who was convicted for offences at the old Civic Creche, in Christchurch. 

In 2019, the Supreme Court allowed him to appeal his convictions but he died a few months later. Nevertheless, his sexual offending convictions were quashed after he died, because the Supreme Court considered his appeal —even though he was no longer alive— based on tikanga.

Normally, a person's legal proceedings die with them. But Ellis' lawyers argued that tikanga, the customary rules which govern Māori life, was part of New Zealand's common law.

Under tikanga, Ellis had the right to clear his name or re-establish his mana, even after he died. 

The Crown did not oppose the argument, agreeing that tikanga had a place in New Zealand law, and his name was cleared. Even though he wasn't alive to see it happen.

So that’s why I think anyone wanting to be a lawyer should study tikanga Māori. But only if they want to. And I agree with Gary Judd KC who says it shouldn't be compulsory.

How about this? I found myself agreeing this morning with someone who has been described as a racist dinosaur. To a point. 
This lefty wokester, that some people seem to think I am, actually agrees with this Kings Council lawyer who disagrees with tikanga Māori being compulsory for students doing a law degree at university from next year. 
I agree with someone who has been described as (quote) “a racist dinosaur who should quietly go and die in a corner”. How about that? 
But to a point. That’s the key bit. 
Gary Judd is his name. Or Gary Judd KC to be precise. And what he’s done, is he’s made a formal complaint to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee over this new requirement that’s due to come into force next year. 
Now, for the purposes of this discussion, the general understanding of tikanga Māori is that it’s the way of doing things within Māori society. 
So, it’s about principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge. The customary rules which govern Māori life. Broadly, it’s what’s known as customary law. Law based on customs. As opposed to common law.  
Gary Judd KC says tikanga actually has nothing to do with Common Law. And Winston Peters is an instant fan, saying that forcing law students to study tikanga Māori is just what he calls "woke indoctrination". 
He says: “Law students should not be force-fed this kind of woke indoctrination from some culture warrior’s slanted version of what tikanga means.” 
Which is kind of what Gary Judd KC is saying too. Although, the complaint he’s made to the Government’s Regulations Review Committee seems to be focussed on tikanga being what he calls “a belief system” and not what he calls a "proper law subject".  
And because he sees it as being a belief system, he doesn’t think it’s relevant to be a compulsory element of a law degree. 
And I agree with him. On the compulsory bit. 
But I think any law student worth their salt would be an idiot to think they can ignore tikanga. Which is why I think it should be voluntary, not compulsory. 
And I say that because I think tikanga Māori is something of a horse that has already bolted. What I’m getting at there, is that Māori principles, processes, procedures, and traditional knowledge can’t be ignored. 
You might be someone who wants to ignore them. But if you’re happy living under a rock, then good luck to you. 
But if someone reckons they’re going to make a good fist of being a lawyer in New Zealand in the 21st century, then they can forget about landing a job at any of the big law firms if they don’t understand Māori customary law.  
They can forget about getting involved in environmental law. They can certainly forget about becoming an in-house lawyer at any of the government departments, or local councils. They can forget about getting involved in criminal law. 
That’s because Māori customary law —or tikanga— has become so entwined in our legal system. 
If you want a recent and very local example, here it is: Peter Ellis who was convicted for offences at the old Civic Creche, in Christchurch.  
In 2019, the Supreme Court allowed him to appeal his convictions but he died a few months later. Nevertheless, his sexual offending convictions were quashed after he died, because the Supreme Court considered his appeal —even though he was no longer alive— based on tikanga. 
Normally, a person's legal proceedings die with them. But Ellis' lawyers argued that tikanga, the customary rules which govern Māori life, was part of New Zealand's common law. 
Under tikanga, Ellis had the right to clear his name or re-establish his mana, even after he died.  
The Crown did not oppose the argument, agreeing that tikanga had a place in New Zealand law, and his name was cleared. Even though he wasn't alive to see it happen. 
So that’s why I think anyone wanting to be a lawyer should study tikanga Māori. But only if they want to. And I agree with Gary Judd KC who says it shouldn't be compulsory.

John MacDonald: I agree with the grumpy lawyer. To a point

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup on Canterbury Mornings.

The compulsory inclusion of tikanga Māori in law studies has ignited debate. Does Hipkins feel it has a place in our legal system? Should its study be compulsory?

He was quick to make an assessment of the Government’s plan for a 'mega-prison' out at Waikeria and voice his views on Mark Mitchell being out of his depth. 

And finally, will he confirm what Carmel Sepuloni was up to whilst on leave?

LISTEN ABOVE

Labour Leader Chris Hipkins joined John MacDonald for their regular catchup on Canterbury Mornings. 
The compulsory inclusion of tikanga Māori in law studies has ignited debate. Does Hipkins feel it has a place in our legal system? Should its study be compulsory? 
He was quick to make an assessment of the Government’s plan for a 'mega-prison' out at Waikeria and voice his views on Mark Mitchell being out of his depth.  
And finally, will he confirm what Carmel Sepuloni was up to whilst on leave? 
LISTEN ABOVE

Politics Friday: National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Tracey McLellan on the funding of Christchurch's new stadium, digital currency, and the public sector cuts

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips