National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Dan Rosewarne joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.

Doocey rejected claims the Woodend Bypass has been put on the back burner, while Rosewarne accused National of over-promising and under-budgeting, and said Labour would prioritise its construction.

However, when repeatedly asked whether Labour would deliver it sooner than National, Rosewarne couldn't provide a clear explanation of how that would be achieved.

They also covered some of the other biggest stories from the week, from David Seymours idea to ban smartphones for under-sixteens, to the Green's new policy to make union membership opt out rather than opt in.

LISTEN ABOVE 

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Dan Rosewarne joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
Doocey rejected claims the Woodend Bypass has been put on the back burner, while Rosewarne accused National of over-promising and under-budgeting, and said Labour would prioritise its construction.
However, when repeatedly asked whether Labour would deliver it sooner than National, Rosewarne couldn't provide a clear explanation of how that would be achieved.
They also covered some of the other biggest stories from the week, from David Seymours idea to ban smartphones for under-sixteens, to the Green's new policy to make union membership opt out rather than opt in.
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

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 with Matt Doocey and Dan Rosewarne on Woodend bypass, smartphone ban ideas, and Greens union policy

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/59527c36-7fb8-4dcb-b0e5-b48901766c33/transcript

I know the real reason why Federated Farmers is so brassed-off with Environment Canterbury. Nevertheless, I agree with them.

They’re saying that ECan is showing “flagrant disregard” for the community, with this push it’s making for Ngāi Tahu to have a permanent role in the region’s resource management after ECan disappears.

Because, with the Government’s local government reforms, ECan is toast.

But what ECan wants to do before it goes out of existence, is sign a deal with Ngāi Tahu and eight of the 10 Canterbury rūnanga, which would have given them a mandatory, permanent role in planning, resource consent processes, monitoring and reporting.

Which has got Federated Farmers’ RMA spokesperson Mark Hooper all excited. He is condemning the move - saying it shouldn’t be happening before the local government reforms. And he wants the Government to step in and tell ECan to drop the idea. And I agree with him.

The real reason Federated Farmers is so spooked by this, is that it wil be thinking that it’s a repeat of the co-governance sideshow we saw with the previous Labour Government’s 3 Waters reforms.

But what ECan is doing here is, to put it politely, a case of the cart before the horse. And the Government must step-in and tell them to drop it.

Because, if these reforms are going to be worth all the upheaval, we can’t have any premature side deals and arrangements being made before it’s even known how many councils there are going to be and where they’re going to be.

To me, this move by ECan looks like an outfit that has its nose out of joint because of the reforms and wants to make some sort of political statement doing this deal with Ngāi Tahu.

What ECan will tell you, is that, since 2013, it’s had an agreement with Ngāi Tahu which effectively means it doesn’t do anything without getting the iwi’s approval first.

But, because ECan is going to be disestablished, it wants to sneak this one through before the lights go out.

Which is a bit like someone selling a business and, before they hand over the keys, giving all the staff a massive pay rise and signing them up to lifetime contracts.

Which wouldn’t be tolerated. And that’s why this move by ECan, which is refusing to talk about it, shouldn’t be tolerated.

As Mark Hooper from Federated Farmers says: “ECan is showing flagrant disregard for its community, pushing this through with no public notification before it appeared on the agenda.”

He says: “That’s deeply concerning and we’re calling on the Government to intervene, so councils can’t rush these agreements through before the system is reformed.” And he’s spot on.

LISTEN ABOVE

I know the real reason why Federated Farmers is so brassed-off with Environment Canterbury. Nevertheless, I agree with them.
They’re saying that ECan is showing “flagrant disregard” for the community, with this push it’s making for Ngāi Tahu to have a permanent role in the region’s resource management after ECan disappears.
Because, with the Government’s local government reforms, ECan is toast.
But what ECan wants to do before it goes out of existence, is sign a deal with Ngāi Tahu and eight of the 10 Canterbury rūnanga, which would have given them a mandatory, permanent role in planning, resource consent processes, monitoring and reporting.
Which has got Federated Farmers’ RMA spokesperson Mark Hooper all excited. He is condemning the move - saying it shouldn’t be happening before the local government reforms. And he wants the Government to step in and tell ECan to drop the idea. And I agree with him.
The real reason Federated Farmers is so spooked by this, is that it wil be thinking that it’s a repeat of the co-governance sideshow we saw with the previous Labour Government’s 3 Waters reforms.
But what ECan is doing here is, to put it politely, a case of the cart before the horse. And the Government must step-in and tell them to drop it.
Because, if these reforms are going to be worth all the upheaval, we can’t have any premature side deals and arrangements being made before it’s even known how many councils there are going to be and where they’re going to be.
To me, this move by ECan looks like an outfit that has its nose out of joint because of the reforms and wants to make some sort of political statement doing this deal with Ngāi Tahu.
What ECan will tell you, is that, since 2013, it’s had an agreement with Ngāi Tahu which effectively means it doesn’t do anything without getting the iwi’s approval first.
But, because ECan is going to be disestablished, it wants to sneak this one through before the lights go out.
Which is a bit like someone selling a business and, before they hand over the keys, giving all the staff a massive pay rise and signing them up to lifetime contracts.
Which wouldn’t be tolerated. And that’s why this move by ECan, which is refusing to talk about it, shouldn’t be tolerated.
As Mark Hooper from Federated Farmers says: “ECan is showing flagrant disregard for its community, pushing this through with no public notification before it appeared on the agenda.”
He says: “That’s deeply concerning and we’re calling on the Government to intervene, so councils can’t rush these agreements through before the system is reformed.” And he’s spot on.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Bird-flipping ECan needs its wings clipped

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/dc5782e8-94cb-4db0-8646-b48a000baa7d/transcript

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

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

Politics Friday with Matt Doocey and Dan Rosewarne on Woodend bypass, smartphone ban ideas, and Greens union policy

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips