National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.

They covered some of the week's biggest issues, including Labour's proposed corporate manslaughter policy, National's plans to tackle the supermarket duopoly, the funding challenges facing Canterbury Museum, and whether they agreed with FENZ Minister Brooke van Velden, who said this week she no longer has confidence in Chief Executive Kerry Gregory.

LISTEN ABOVE

National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Tracey McLellan joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the week's biggest issues, including Labour's proposed corporate manslaughter policy, National's plans to tackle the supermarket duopoly, the funding challenges facing Canterbury Museum, and whether they agreed with FENZ Minister Brooke van Velden, who said this week she no longer has confidence in Chief Executive Kerry Gregory.
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: Tracey McLellan and Vanessa Weenink on corporate manslaughter policy, supermarkets, FENZ confidence

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/067e5644-256a-41db-88df-b4c8017aab3f/transcript

If Labour’s $2 billion fees-free scheme didn’t lead to an increase in student numbers but did reduce student debt, was it still worth it?

The coalition government doesn’t think so and is scrapping the scheme, saying it’s better to invest in things like trades training.

But I think the risk is we look at this $2 billion, which has come to light today through information provided to Newstalk ZB under the Official Information Act, and assume straight away that it was one big waste of money.

When it started, it was the first year of fees that were free. Then it changed to the final year of study. Most of the money went to university students, with the rest going to people signing up to study at polytechnics, private training establishments, industry training organisations and wānanga.

As far as Tertiary Education Minister Penny Simmonds is concerned, it was a huge waste of money.

But, as someone who got in touch with me about it said: if you sit at home and do nothing, you get the dole. But if you get off your butt and go and study, you get nothing but a big loan to pay off.

They said the fees-free scheme might not have been the best way to go about it. But there is an inequity between people who don’t want to do anything and who get support from taxpayers, and others who try to make something of themselves and don’t.

And that’s where I’m at too. Yes, $2 billion is a truckload of taxpayer money. Yes, as we’re finding out today, it was $2 billion that didn’t actually achieve what it was supposed to achieve, which was getting more people into tertiary education.

But the other side of it is that the 300,000 students who took advantage of the scheme did come out of their studies with less debt than they otherwise might have. And what’s wrong with that?

Penny Simmonds says students will still be supported through the student loan scheme.

But don’t they deserve more than the government telling them to borrow more?

The Green Party is upset. It says the scheme increased Māori participation in tertiary education by about 20 percent.

But, more to the point, it doesn’t think it’s acceptable for the government to say it’s supporting students by piling more debt on them. And I agree.

Yes, some students can access the student allowance. But the bar for that is so high that most end up not qualifying for it.

So they put everything on the student loan and walk out the door with a whole lot of debt.

The fees-free scheme was far from perfect. But surely our tertiary students deserve better than just being told to go and borrow more money.

LISTEN ABOVE

If Labour’s $2 billion fees-free scheme didn’t lead to an increase in student numbers but did reduce student debt, was it still worth it?
The coalition government doesn’t think so and is scrapping the scheme, saying it’s better to invest in things like trades training.
But I think the risk is we look at this $2 billion, which has come to light today through information provided to Newstalk ZB under the Official Information Act, and assume straight away that it was one big waste of money.
When it started, it was the first year of fees that were free. Then it changed to the final year of study. Most of the money went to university students, with the rest going to people signing up to study at polytechnics, private training establishments, industry training organisations and wānanga.
As far as Tertiary Education Minister Penny Simmonds is concerned, it was a huge waste of money.
But, as someone who got in touch with me about it said: if you sit at home and do nothing, you get the dole. But if you get off your butt and go and study, you get nothing but a big loan to pay off.
They said the fees-free scheme might not have been the best way to go about it. But there is an inequity between people who don’t want to do anything and who get support from taxpayers, and others who try to make something of themselves and don’t.
And that’s where I’m at too. Yes, $2 billion is a truckload of taxpayer money. Yes, as we’re finding out today, it was $2 billion that didn’t actually achieve what it was supposed to achieve, which was getting more people into tertiary education.
But the other side of it is that the 300,000 students who took advantage of the scheme did come out of their studies with less debt than they otherwise might have. And what’s wrong with that?
Penny Simmonds says students will still be supported through the student loan scheme.
But don’t they deserve more than the government telling them to borrow more?
The Green Party is upset. It says the scheme increased Māori participation in tertiary education by about 20 percent.
But, more to the point, it doesn’t think it’s acceptable for the government to say it’s supporting students by piling more debt on them. And I agree.
Yes, some students can access the student allowance. But the bar for that is so high that most end up not qualifying for it.
So they put everything on the student loan and walk out the door with a whole lot of debt.
The fees-free scheme was far from perfect. But surely our tertiary students deserve better than just being told to go and borrow more money.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Students deserve better than just more debt

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/579c00ba-f16d-420b-9878-b4cd000b6c48/transcript

I could try to be understanding about this. But I can’t.

Because, how on earth did we get to the point where kids are turning up at school in nappies, and unable to hold a pencil?

If someone’s kid can’t do those things by the time they turn five and start school, then they have failed.

The same goes if they’ve let their kid spend so much time on devices that they’re incapable of having a conversation.

In case you think I’m lumping kids with genuine learning and physical challenges together with kids who can’t do these things because their parents or caregivers have failed them, I’m not.

But when you have National wanting to ban screen time in early childhood centres and limit screen time for Year 1 to Year 3 primary school students so they can focus more on things like learning to hold a pencil and write, you know something’s gone wrong.

You also know things have gone wrong when you hear Education spokesperson Erica Stanford wanting to broaden pre-school checks, because kids are turning up not even knowing the basics.

This is the part of this new policy that I really like. It’s sad that it’s needed, but I like it.

And if you're thinking it’s not all that bad because these kids will eventually catch up, think again. They will catch up, but on average it could take as long as three years.

National thinks part of the solution is to get kids in early childhood centres, and five, six and seven-year-olds at school, off devices and focusing on the basics.

And to test kids before they start school to make sure they can do these very basic things.

All of which I support.

But it won’t do much good if we continue to let these hopeless parents off the hook.

LISTEN ABOVE

I could try to be understanding about this. But I can’t.
Because, how on earth did we get to the point where kids are turning up at school in nappies, and unable to hold a pencil?
If someone’s kid can’t do those things by the time they turn five and start school, then they have failed.
The same goes if they’ve let their kid spend so much time on devices that they’re incapable of having a conversation.
In case you think I’m lumping kids with genuine learning and physical challenges together with kids who can’t do these things because their parents or caregivers have failed them, I’m not.
But when you have National wanting to ban screen time in early childhood centres and limit screen time for Year 1 to Year 3 primary school students so they can focus more on things like learning to hold a pencil and write, you know something’s gone wrong.
You also know things have gone wrong when you hear Education spokesperson Erica Stanford wanting to broaden pre-school checks, because kids are turning up not even knowing the basics.
This is the part of this new policy that I really like. It’s sad that it’s needed, but I like it.
And if you're thinking it’s not all that bad because these kids will eventually catch up, think again. They will catch up, but on average it could take as long as three years.
National thinks part of the solution is to get kids in early childhood centres, and five, six and seven-year-olds at school, off devices and focusing on the basics.
And to test kids before they start school to make sure they can do these very basic things.
All of which I support.
But it won’t do much good if we continue to let these hopeless parents off the hook.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Nappies at school. How did it get to this?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b9db40f2-013c-4930-aabd-b4cc000582c0/transcript

Labour has come up with a policy that I think is actually meaningful and would hold employers more accountable for workplace deaths.

Labour has announced that, if elected, it will introduce a corporate homicide charge. Which would mean, if a worker died on the job, their employer could be charged with homicide.

The punishments would be pretty hefty. An individual could end up with a life prison sentence and companies could be hit with fines of up to $10 million.

And about time. Because even though our health & safety laws have been beefed-up after Pike River, the punishments dished-out haven’t kept up.

And Labour wants to change that.

The party’s workplace relations and safety spokesperson, Jan Tinetti, says, even though New Zealand has one of the highest rates of workplace deaths in the developed world, employers can’t be held as accountable as they should be.

She says Labour wants to deliver what the Pike River families have been calling for for years. Which is the ability to charge employers with homicide.

Sonya Rockhouse, whose son Ben was killed at Pike River, is saying today that Labour’s policy announcement today is fantastic news.

She says: “People who are in charge and who knowingly make the workplace unsafe, they need to be held to account.”

Now, let’s say this went ahead and corporate homicide was a thing, it wouldn’t necessarily deliver what the likes of the Pike River families have wanted.

Which, if we’re honest, is to see the former mine boss taken to the cleaners.

Which makes the timing of today’s announcement interesting.

Because, only three weeks ago, the NZ Herald reported that Crown prosecutors were considering police recommendations on possible charges relating to Pike River.

The Herald said at the time that it understood manslaughter charges were among the charges being considered. So where this Labour policy fits with that, I’m not sure.

Either way, I like it.

As Sonya Rockhouse from the Pike River families is saying, just the threat of a life sentence or a massive fine would be enough for most employers to make sure their health & safety is up to scratch.

I’m realistic, though, and know that, if this went ahead, not all corporate homicide charges would stick.

Because guilt can’t always be proven. And that can leave people somewhat disillusioned.

Depending on the situation, a corporate homicide charge could be very difficult to prove. For example, proving that the boss of an outfit actually knew about a particular risk in the workplace before someone was killed wouldn’t always be easy.

Nevertheless, I think the ability to lay a corporate homicide charge would move things on from where they are at the moment. So it gets my support.

LISTEN ABOVE

Labour has come up with a policy that I think is actually meaningful and would hold employers more accountable for workplace deaths.
Labour has announced that, if elected, it will introduce a corporate homicide charge. Which would mean, if a worker died on the job, their employer could be charged with homicide.
The punishments would be pretty hefty. An individual could end up with a life prison sentence and companies could be hit with fines of up to $10 million.
And about time. Because even though our health &amp; safety laws have been beefed-up after Pike River, the punishments dished-out haven’t kept up.
And Labour wants to change that.
The party’s workplace relations and safety spokesperson, Jan Tinetti, says, even though New Zealand has one of the highest rates of workplace deaths in the developed world, employers can’t be held as accountable as they should be.
She says Labour wants to deliver what the Pike River families have been calling for for years. Which is the ability to charge employers with homicide.
Sonya Rockhouse, whose son Ben was killed at Pike River, is saying today that Labour’s policy announcement today is fantastic news.
She says: “People who are in charge and who knowingly make the workplace unsafe, they need to be held to account.”
Now, let’s say this went ahead and corporate homicide was a thing, it wouldn’t necessarily deliver what the likes of the Pike River families have wanted.
Which, if we’re honest, is to see the former mine boss taken to the cleaners.
Which makes the timing of today’s announcement interesting.
Because, only three weeks ago, the NZ Herald reported that Crown prosecutors were considering police recommendations on possible charges relating to Pike River.
The Herald said at the time that it understood manslaughter charges were among the charges being considered. So where this Labour policy fits with that, I’m not sure.
Either way, I like it.
As Sonya Rockhouse from the Pike River families is saying, just the threat of a life sentence or a massive fine would be enough for most employers to make sure their health &amp; safety is up to scratch.
I’m realistic, though, and know that, if this went ahead, not all corporate homicide charges would stick.
Because guilt can’t always be proven. And that can leave people somewhat disillusioned.
Depending on the situation, a corporate homicide charge could be very difficult to prove. For example, proving that the boss of an outfit actually knew about a particular risk in the workplace before someone was killed wouldn’t always be easy.
Nevertheless, I think the ability to lay a corporate homicide charge would move things on from where they are at the moment. So it gets my support.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Why not big fines and sentences for H&S failures?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c8566557-ec4b-4d6d-8b27-b4c9000b7ba4/transcript

Politics Friday: Tracey McLellan and Vanessa Weenink on corporate manslaughter policy, supermarkets, FENZ confidence

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips