Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb joined John MacDonald in studio for Politics Friday. They discussed Helen Clark’s recent comments around New Zealand’s relationship with the United States – do they agree?  

On the topic of privacy versus safety, when it comes to mental illness, is keeping people safe a higher priority than keeping someone’s health private? 

And Tourism New Zealand’s new 100% Pure marketing campaign has been launched, and Duncan Webb is not a fan. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb joined John MacDonald in studio for Politics Friday. They discussed Helen Clark’s recent comments around New Zealand’s relationship with the United States – do they agree? &nbsp;
On the topic of privacy versus safety, when it comes to mental illness, is keeping people safe a higher priority than keeping someone’s health private?&nbsp;
And Tourism New Zealand’s new 100% Pure marketing campaign has been launched, and Duncan Webb is not a fan.&nbsp;
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 Duncan Webb: NZ's relationship with the US, privacy vs safety, and Tourism NZ's new marketing campaign

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/d5e51bdd-a7d2-4eab-a720-b2fb00088d2e/transcript

Isn’t it funny how the Government likes to talk about government support needing to be based on need, but seems to forget about all that when it comes to those nice middle-class people.  

Of which I am one. I’m not claiming to be nice, but I am what you would call middle-class.  

Which makes me fully qualified to ask why a family bringing in $229,000 a year should get taxpayer support to pay for their kids’ early childhood education.  

It also makes me highly qualified to answer that question, and to say that a family earning that amount of money doesn’t need or deserve that level of taxpayer support.  

The Government has expanded its FamilyBoost scheme, which is all about letting parents claim back some of the money they pay early childhood centres. The Government’s done it because not as many people were taking advantage of the scheme as it had expected and which Finance Minister Nicola Willis had budgeted for.  

Before yesterday’s announcement, families earning up to $180,000 a year were eligible to claim back 25% of their early childhood fees.   

Now families earning as much as $229,000 will be able to claim back 40% of their early childhood fees and I find it impossible to see how that can be justified.  

Granted, I’m looking at this through the eyes of someone who had kids going through the early childhood system 15-to-20 years ago. I’m also looking at it through the eyes of someone in Canterbury as opposed to somewhere like Auckland.  

Nevertheless, I still don’t see why or how the Government thinks a couple earning that amount of money —way more than 200k a year— needs financial support.  

I saw some parents on the news last night at the centre in Wellington where Nicola Willis turned up to make the announcement yesterday, and they were all for it. But, of course they would be.  

I can say that because I know how, when you’ve got pre-school kids, you’re still getting over the hit it has on the finances.  

You might be down to one parent working – that’s if there are two of you. You’ve possibly got a decent-sized mortgage. Or you’re paying rent. So, of course, you’re going to think you need a leg-up wherever you can get it.  

But what parents of very young kids don’t tend to think about is that it doesn’t get any cheaper. In fact, it gets more expensive the older the kids get.  

Which brings me my other criticism of this expansion of the FamilyBoost scheme: what about the parents of older kids?  

What about the parents who have got kids at high school and have to come up with money for all sorts of things, such as uniforms, sports trips, music trips, laptops. You name it.  

Not that I’m saying that every parent with kids at the high school stage deserve the kind of carte-blanche handout the Government’s giving parents who have got kids going to pre-school.  

But it highlights further how expanding the FamilyBoost scheme just doesn’t make sense.  

And I think the opposition parties can be accused of tiptoeing around the issue. Especially Labour, which is banging on about the Government’s changes yesterday to the FamilyBoost programme being “desperate”.  

Megan Woods is Labour’s acting finance spokesperson and she’s saying today that the Government is scrambling to help families dealing with the cost-of-living crisis. 

She’s saying: "If Nicola Willis truly understood the cost-of-living crisis, then she'd have acted a long time ago."  

But what Megan Woods should be doing is ripping into the Government for thinking that families earning just on $230,000-a-year need government support to pay for their kids to go to pre-school.  

Isn’t it funny how the Government likes to talk about government support needing to be based on need, but seems to forget about all that when it comes to those nice middle-class people. &nbsp;
Of which I am one. I’m not claiming to be nice, but I am what you would call middle-class. &nbsp;
Which makes me fully qualified to ask why a family bringing in $229,000 a year should get taxpayer support to pay for their kids’ early childhood education. &nbsp;
It also makes me highly qualified to answer that question, and to say that a family earning that amount of money doesn’t need or deserve that level of taxpayer support. &nbsp;
The Government has expanded its FamilyBoost scheme, which is all about letting parents claim back some of the money they pay early childhood centres. The Government’s done it because not as many people were taking advantage of the scheme as it had expected and which Finance Minister Nicola Willis had budgeted for. &nbsp;
Before yesterday’s announcement, families earning up to $180,000 a year were eligible to claim back 25% of their early childhood fees. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Now families earning as much as $229,000 will be able to claim back 40% of their early childhood fees and I find it impossible to see how that can be justified. &nbsp;
Granted, I’m looking at this through the eyes of someone who had kids going through the early childhood system 15-to-20 years ago. I’m also looking at it through the eyes of someone in Canterbury as opposed to somewhere like Auckland. &nbsp;
Nevertheless, I still don’t see why or how the Government thinks a couple earning that amount of money —way more than 200k a year— needs financial support. &nbsp;
I saw some parents on the news last night at the centre in Wellington where Nicola Willis turned up to make the announcement yesterday, and they were all for it. But, of course they would be. &nbsp;
I can say that because I know how, when you’ve got pre-school kids, you’re still getting over the hit it has on the finances. &nbsp;
You might be down to one parent working – that’s if there are two of you. You’ve possibly got a decent-sized mortgage. Or you’re paying rent. So, of course, you’re going to think you need a leg-up wherever you can get it. &nbsp;
But what parents of very young kids don’t tend to think about is that it doesn’t get any cheaper. In fact, it gets more expensive the older the kids get. &nbsp;
Which brings me my other criticism of this expansion of the FamilyBoost scheme: what about the parents of older kids? &nbsp;
What about the parents who have got kids at high school and have to come up with money for all sorts of things, such as uniforms, sports trips, music trips, laptops. You name it. &nbsp;
Not that I’m saying that every parent with kids at the high school stage deserve the kind of carte-blanche handout the Government’s giving parents who have got kids going to pre-school. &nbsp;
But it highlights further how expanding the FamilyBoost scheme just doesn’t make sense. &nbsp;
And I think the opposition parties can be accused of tiptoeing around the issue. Especially Labour, which is banging on about the Government’s changes yesterday to the FamilyBoost programme being “desperate”. &nbsp;
Megan Woods is Labour’s acting finance spokesperson and she’s saying today that the Government is scrambling to help families dealing with the cost-of-living crisis.&nbsp;
She’s saying: "If Nicola Willis truly understood the cost-of-living crisis, then she'd have acted a long time ago." &nbsp;
But what Megan Woods should be doing is ripping into the Government for thinking that families earning just on $230,000-a-year need government support to pay for their kids to go to pre-school. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: Why do families earning $200K-plus need govt. support?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0bf7e4d2-9bde-4cc5-b990-b31400132929/transcript

The Government wants to free-up the laws relating to citizens' arrests. But should this include letting retail staff detain children and young people caught shoplifting?  

The Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, is saying today that it shouldn’t. And I agree with her. But not for the same reason.   

She says allowing shop owners and shop staff to detain young people would contravene the right of children to be free from violence. 

She says that right applies to kids anywhere and everywhere - including in shops and retail outlets. Even when they’re nicking stuff.

Dr Achmad says shop staff have every right to ask for stolen stuff to be handed over. But it wouldn’t be fair on the young offenders if the people in the shops also had the right to detain them. And I agree with her. But not for the same reason.  

Overall, I’m 50/50 on this idea of citizens arrests.  

At the moment, there are limitations on when and where they can be done. But the Government wants to loosen those limitations. And isn’t ruling out loosening them to the point where shopkeepers could detain kids stealing stuff.

When I say I’m 50/50, I’m all for security guards getting stronger powers to detain people. Providing they get the right training. But as for the rest of us. Forget about it. As for shopkeepers arresting young people. Forget about it. Because it’s got danger written all over it.  

Danger from over-enthusiastic vigilantes going overboard. And danger for the people taking these young crims on. 

Which is why I don’t want to see people in shops being given the green light to arrest or detain kids and young people stealing their stuff.

That's where I differ from the Chief Children's Commissioner. She's opposed because of the kids' right to be protected from violence. I'm opposed because of the danger to retailers who, collectively, lose about $2.5 billion every year through retail crime. 

I detest shoplifting just as much as the next person. But if we give shop owners and shop workers the power to make citizens arrests of kids and young people caught stealing their stuff any time, any place - what do you think will happen?

It would mean unfair pressure being placed on, often young, retail workers to intervene and put themselves at risk.

I know some retailers would tell their staff either not to intervene or only do so if they felt confident enough to.

But there would also be some employers who would see a law change as a licence to require their staff to intervene. And, as we’ve seen countless times, just because someone is 11, 12 or 13, it doesn’t make them any less of a risk or less or a danger.

There are kids who carry weapons. There are kids who have no regard for other people and who are quite prepared to use these weapons. 

Do we really want shop staff being given the powers to take these kids on and to try and arrest them? Of course we don’t. 

LISTEN ABOVE

The Government wants to free-up the laws relating to citizens' arrests. But should this include letting retail staff detain children and young people caught shoplifting? &nbsp;
The Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, is saying today that it shouldn’t. And I agree with her. But not for the same reason. &nbsp;&nbsp;
She says allowing shop owners and shop staff to detain young people would contravene the right of children to be free from violence.&nbsp;
She says that right applies to kids anywhere and everywhere - including in shops and retail outlets. Even when they’re nicking stuff.
Dr Achmad says shop staff have every right to ask for stolen stuff to be handed over. But it wouldn’t be fair on the young offenders if the people in the shops also had the right to detain them. And I agree with her. But not for the same reason. &nbsp;
Overall, I’m 50/50 on this idea of citizens arrests. &nbsp;
At the moment, there are limitations on when and where they can be done. But the Government wants to loosen those limitations. And isn’t ruling out loosening them to the point where shopkeepers could detain kids stealing stuff.
When I say I’m 50/50, I’m all for security guards getting stronger powers to detain people. Providing they get the right training. But as for the rest of us. Forget about it. As for shopkeepers arresting young people. Forget about it. Because it’s got danger written all over it. &nbsp;
Danger from over-enthusiastic vigilantes going overboard. And danger for the people taking these young crims on.&nbsp;
Which is why I don’t want to see people in shops being given the green light to arrest or detain kids and young people stealing their stuff.
That's where I differ from the Chief Children's Commissioner. She's opposed because of the kids' right to be protected from violence. I'm opposed because of the danger to retailers who, collectively, lose about $2.5 billion every year through retail crime.&nbsp;
I detest shoplifting just as much as the next person. But if we give shop owners and shop workers the power to make citizens arrests of kids and young people caught stealing their stuff any time, any place - what do you think will happen?
It would mean unfair pressure being placed on, often young, retail workers to intervene and put themselves at risk.
I know some retailers would tell their staff either not to intervene or only do so if they felt confident enough to.
But there would also be some employers who would see a law change as a licence to require their staff to intervene. And, as we’ve seen countless times, just because someone is 11, 12 or 13, it doesn’t make them any less of a risk or less or a danger.
There are kids who carry weapons. There are kids who have no regard for other people and who are quite prepared to use these weapons.&nbsp;
Do we really want shop staff being given the powers to take these kids on and to try and arrest them? Of course we don’t.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Detaining young shoplifters is a dangerous idea

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6a9b5b38-112e-47e0-a39e-b3130038a712/transcript

I didn’t do any study after I left school —no university, no polytech— so I’ve never had a student loan. I know about debt though, thanks to the mortgage.  

And I reckon it would be very easy for me, as someone who has never had to pay off a student loan but who knows what it’s like to have the responsibilities of a mortgage, to dismiss what a former IRD prosecutor is saying today.  

A former IRD prosecutor who says we need to go a bit easy on New Zealanders living overseas who are way behind in their student loan payments and are too scared to set foot here because they think they’ll be arrested at the border.  

Dave Ananth is a tax barrister who has done work for IRD in the past. He says it’s crazy that, at a time when we want and need skilled people working here, we are so hardcore with these people that they’re just not coming back.  

Because they’re too scared to come back.  

And I agree with him. Which kind of surprises me because I’m normally big on people not shying away from responsibilities and all that.   

But when you consider some real-life examples, I reckon it’s very easy to appreciate the argument for change.   

Dave Ananth is saying it’s all very well going overseas, but that doesn’t mean people walk into well-paying jobs. The grass doesn’t always turn out to be greener.  

So what he’s calling for IRD to be lenient enough so that these Kiwis aren’t scared of coming back. He says a bit of leeway would go a long way.  

One approach he thinks could work is IRD talking to these people and seeing if they could apply for some grace on the basis of hardship. Or agree to letting them come back, pay a few hundred dollars for a start and see how it goes.  

And I don’t see anything wrong with that. Because what would you rather have? These people stuck overseas owing all this money? Or would you rather they were here making a genuine contribution to the country?   

It’s a no-brainer. As this tax lawyer says, if nothing changes, it probably means some of these people never setting foot in New Zealand because they could potentially be arrested.  

Kiwis who have expertise in the likes of engineering and technology. There are medical people he says would be here if they didn’t have the threat of arrest hanging over them.  

And he’s giving some real-life examples to back up his argument. Such as a New Zealander living in Australia whose loan has blown-out to $170,000, mostly because of interest.  

Back in 2014, this guy completed his pilot training but couldn’t find any flying work here, so he went over to Australia and worked as a commercial pilot for six years.  

Things got tricky for him when Covid hit, there was no more flying for him, and he had to take a low-paying job in a storage warehouse. Which meant he got way behind in his loan payments.  

Then there’s the case of a woman living in the United States. Her debt has blown-out to $70,000 —$55,000 of that from interest— and she isn’t coming home to see her sick mother because she’s terrified she’s going to be arrested at the border.  

As she says: "I've been petrified something's going to happen to my mum and she's going to pass away and I'm not even going to be able to go there."  

I was talking to someone this morning who said they went overseas for just a year, and it cost them $1,000.  

So there is no shortage of stories that show how this system just isn’t doing anyone any favours. It’s not doing the people with the student loans living overseas any favours and it’s not doing the rest of us any favours.  

Because these people have the skills and expertise we are crying out for.  

I didn’t do any study after I left school —no university, no polytech— so I’ve never had a student loan. I know about debt though, thanks to the mortgage. &nbsp;
And I reckon it would be very easy for me, as someone who has never had to pay off a student loan but who knows what it’s like to have the responsibilities of a mortgage, to dismiss what a former IRD prosecutor is saying today. &nbsp;
A former IRD prosecutor who says we need to go a bit easy on New Zealanders living overseas who are way behind in their student loan payments and are too scared to set foot here because they think they’ll be arrested at the border. &nbsp;
Dave Ananth is a tax barrister who has done work for IRD in the past. He says it’s crazy that, at a time when we want and need skilled people working here, we are so hardcore with these people that they’re just not coming back. &nbsp;
Because they’re too scared to come back. &nbsp;
And I agree with him. Which kind of surprises me because I’m normally big on people not shying away from responsibilities and all that. &nbsp;&nbsp;
But when you consider some real-life examples, I reckon it’s very easy to appreciate the argument for change. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Dave Ananth is saying it’s all very well going overseas, but that doesn’t mean people walk into well-paying jobs. The grass doesn’t always turn out to be greener. &nbsp;
So what he’s calling for IRD to be lenient enough so that these Kiwis aren’t scared of coming back. He says a bit of leeway would go a long way. &nbsp;
One approach he thinks could work is IRD talking to these people and seeing if they could apply for some grace on the basis of hardship. Or agree to letting them come back, pay a few hundred dollars for a start and see how it goes. &nbsp;
And I don’t see anything wrong with that. Because what would you rather have? These people stuck overseas owing all this money? Or would you rather they were here making a genuine contribution to the country? &nbsp;&nbsp;
It’s a no-brainer. As this tax lawyer says, if nothing changes, it probably means some of these people never setting foot in New Zealand because they could potentially be arrested. &nbsp;
Kiwis who have expertise in the likes of engineering and technology. There are medical people he says would be here if they didn’t have the threat of arrest hanging over them. &nbsp;
And he’s giving some real-life examples to back up his argument. Such as a New Zealander living in Australia whose loan has blown-out to $170,000, mostly because of interest. &nbsp;
Back in 2014, this guy completed his pilot training but couldn’t find any flying work here, so he went over to Australia and worked as a commercial pilot for six years. &nbsp;
Things got tricky for him when Covid hit, there was no more flying for him, and he had to take a low-paying job in a storage warehouse. Which meant he got way behind in his loan payments. &nbsp;
Then there’s the case of a woman living in the United States. Her debt has blown-out to $70,000 —$55,000 of that from interest— and she isn’t coming home to see her sick mother because she’s terrified she’s going to be arrested at the border. &nbsp;
As she says: "I've been petrified something's going to happen to my mum and she's going to pass away and I'm not even going to be able to go there." &nbsp;
I was talking to someone this morning who said they went overseas for just a year, and it cost them $1,000. &nbsp;
So there is no shortage of stories that show how this system just isn’t doing anyone any favours. It’s not doing the people with the student loans living overseas any favours and it’s not doing the rest of us any favours. &nbsp;
Because these people have the skills and expertise we are crying out for. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: The hardline stance on student loans is backfiring

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b6bf953c-9af7-418c-af28-b310000d1dca/transcript

Politics Friday with Matt Doocey and Duncan Webb: NZ's relationship with the US, privacy vs safety, and Tourism NZ's new marketing campaign

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips