Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Matt Doocey to delve into the biggest stories of the week. 

They discussed the tougher immigration policies the Government is introducing to tackle overstayers, the struggling and overworked justice system, and housing intensification in Christchurch. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Matt Doocey to delve into the biggest stories of the week.&nbsp;
They discussed the tougher immigration policies the Government is introducing to tackle overstayers, the struggling and overworked justice system, and housing intensification in Christchurch.&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 Megan Woods: Immigration and overstayers, justice system, housing intensification

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/20cb2397-fda2-434c-a96d-b34f000b331b/transcript

The rubber is hitting the road for us here in New Zealand with fuel prices on the up because of the situation in the Middle East. 

The Taxpayers’ Union hasn’t been slow in coming forward, saying the government should be cutting its fuel taxes. Temporarily, anyway. 

It says households shouldn’t be forced to shoulder the full cost of global instability. 

It’s spokesman Jordan Williams is saying that people are already struggling with the cost of living and the government needs to wear some of the burden rather than lumping it all on motorists. 

I get his argument and, more to the point, it’s not just motorists who are impacted. Everyone is impacted because the price of fuel pretty much impacts the price of everything. 

Nevertheless, thank goodness the government hasn’t jumped on the kneejerk reaction bandwagon with this one. With finance minister Nicola Willis saying that won’t be happening. 

Which makes perfect sense. For several reasons. 

The main one being timing. 

We’re only a week or so into this war and who knows what’s going to be happening this time next week or two weeks from now. 

And that’s the job of a government in times like these. Don’t panic and see where things go. 

Especially, when there’s the potential for the G7 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States - to release some of the fuel they keep up their sleeve for times like these. 

They decided overnight that that doesn’t need to happen right now. But they’re due to have another think about later this week. 

The Automobile Association’s principal policy adviser terry Collins has been warning that petrol prices could get close to $4 a litre. 

I think the likelihood of that has diminished and good on the government for holding its nerve. 

Tell that to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, though. 

He says back in 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, his government heard about people not being able to afford the petrol they needed to get to work. 

At that point, a litre of petrol cost $3. 

Chris Hipkins says: “Once fuel inflation reached that point where people couldn’t afford to go to work, because they couldn’t afford to fill up the car, we made the decision at that point that the immediate priority was providing support to New Zealand households.” 

And he wants to see the same thing happen again. 

I don’t - and I think the government’s made the right move. 

LISTEN ABOVE

The rubber is hitting the road for us here in New Zealand with fuel prices on the up because of the situation in the Middle East.&nbsp;
The Taxpayers’ Union hasn’t been slow in coming forward, saying the government should be cutting its fuel taxes. Temporarily, anyway.&nbsp;
It says households shouldn’t be forced to shoulder the full cost of global instability.&nbsp;
It’s spokesman Jordan Williams is saying that people are already struggling with the cost of living and the government needs to wear some of the burden rather than lumping it all on motorists.&nbsp;
I get his argument and, more to the point, it’s not just motorists who are impacted. Everyone is impacted because the price of fuel pretty much impacts the price of everything.&nbsp;
Nevertheless, thank goodness the government hasn’t jumped on the kneejerk reaction bandwagon with this one. With finance minister Nicola Willis saying that won’t be happening.&nbsp;
Which makes perfect sense. For several reasons.&nbsp;
The main one being timing.&nbsp;
We’re only a week or so into this war and who knows what’s going to be happening this time next week or two weeks from now.&nbsp;
And that’s the job of a government in times like these. Don’t panic and see where things go.&nbsp;
Especially, when there’s the potential for the G7 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States - to release some of the fuel they keep up their sleeve for times like these.&nbsp;
They decided overnight that that doesn’t need to happen right now. But they’re due to have another think about later this week.&nbsp;
The Automobile Association’s principal policy adviser terry Collins has been warning that petrol prices could get close to $4 a litre.&nbsp;
I think the likelihood of that has diminished and good on the government for holding its nerve.&nbsp;
Tell that to Labour leader Chris Hipkins, though.&nbsp;
He says back in 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, his government heard about people not being able to afford the petrol they needed to get to work.&nbsp;
At that point, a litre of petrol cost $3.&nbsp;
Chris Hipkins says: “Once fuel inflation reached that point where people couldn’t afford to go to work, because they couldn’t afford to fill up the car, we made the decision at that point that the immediate priority was providing support to New Zealand households.”&nbsp;
And he wants to see the same thing happen again.&nbsp;
I don’t - and I think the government’s made the right move.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Now is not the time to cut fuel taxes

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/cc8052f4-2f08-4b28-81ca-b408017fbc06/transcript

Christopher Luxon is at risk of sounding a bit like Joe Biden.

You’ll remember the former US president bungled that election debate with Donald Trump and then people started calling for him to go and he said he wasn’t standing down.

Christopher Luxon sounded a bit like that when he was on Newstalk ZB on Friday afternoon and this morning.

He said he was “absolutely not” considering standing down. That the only thing he was thinking about was the future of our kids and grandkids.

I think he’s absolutely right not to be thinking about standing down. Not that I think his colleagues won’t try to roll him. That could happen. And, when I heard him on Friday, I wondered whether his denial of having any thoughts about standing down was a message for us or a message for his caucus.

I’m in no doubt he was talking to his colleagues. Telling them very publicly that he’s not going anywhere.

He said he has no idea where the talk about him considering his future came from. He also said “hand on heart” he will still be Prime Minister and leader of the National Party when this year’s election comes around.

So not considering his future in the slightest. Nor should he.

While I don’t think he’s anywhere near the best prime minister we’ve ever had nor the best leader National has ever had, he’s not the worst of a pretty average bunch.

Over the weekend, a poll came out saying that 51 percent of people want to see a new leader of the National party. But that same poll showed that the likes of Erica Stanford’s star has faded a bit with voters.

The other thing too with her and other names mentioned, such as Mark Mitchell is that, while they have impressed people with their portfolio work, do you reckon they’d be any good at being across everything?

Could you imagine Mark Mitchell or Erica Stanford talking about inflation with any great authority? Chris Bishop would probably be the most credible on that front.

Another reason why I think Luxon should stay, is that this is his moment to show that he can hold a steady course when things hit the fan. It’s his chance to show that he can keep a team together when things are going a bit pear-shaped.

Reason number three: the last thing this country needs right now is more turbulence. There’s enough going on. Changing prime minister is way different than Labour changing leader back in 2017 when it was in Opposition.

If Chrisopher Luxon is the leader he seems to think he is, then he’ll ignore all that noise. Not for his sake. But for the sake of the country.

LISTEN ABOVE

Christopher Luxon is at risk of sounding a bit like Joe Biden.
You’ll remember the former US president bungled that election debate with Donald Trump and then people started calling for him to go and he said he wasn’t standing down.
Christopher Luxon sounded a bit like that when he was on Newstalk ZB on Friday afternoon and this morning.
He said he was “absolutely not” considering standing down. That the only thing he was thinking about was the future of our kids and grandkids.
I think he’s absolutely right not to be thinking about standing down. Not that I think his colleagues won’t try to roll him. That could happen. And, when I heard him on Friday, I wondered whether his denial of having any thoughts about standing down was a message for us or a message for his caucus.
I’m in no doubt he was talking to his colleagues. Telling them very publicly that he’s not going anywhere.
He said he has no idea where the talk about him considering his future came from. He also said “hand on heart” he will still be Prime Minister and leader of the National Party when this year’s election comes around.
So not considering his future in the slightest. Nor should he.
While I don’t think he’s anywhere near the best prime minister we’ve ever had nor the best leader National has ever had, he’s not the worst of a pretty average bunch.
Over the weekend, a poll came out saying that 51 percent of people want to see a new leader of the National party. But that same poll showed that the likes of Erica Stanford’s star has faded a bit with voters.
The other thing too with her and other names mentioned, such as Mark Mitchell is that, while they have impressed people with their portfolio work, do you reckon they’d be any good at being across everything?
Could you imagine Mark Mitchell or Erica Stanford talking about inflation with any great authority? Chris Bishop would probably be the most credible on that front.
Another reason why I think Luxon should stay, is that this is his moment to show that he can hold a steady course when things hit the fan. It’s his chance to show that he can keep a team together when things are going a bit pear-shaped.
Reason number three: the last thing this country needs right now is more turbulence. There’s enough going on. Changing prime minister is way different than Labour changing leader back in 2017 when it was in Opposition.
If Chrisopher Luxon is the leader he seems to think he is, then he’ll ignore all that noise. Not for his sake. But for the sake of the country.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: The main reason Luxon should stay

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/37dfc0d7-6599-46f6-b34e-b4070183710a/transcript

You know what the Government should do with this recommendation from a parliamentary select committee to ban under-16s from using social media? Ignore it.

With the Government thinking about copying Australia’s ban, a select committee has looked into it and it’s come back with a whole lot of recommendations relating to the online world - including a recommendation that we go ahead with a ban.

The committee says: “Harm to young New Zealanders from online platforms is severe and requires urgent responses.”

The key word there is “harm” and, as the ACT Party is saying today, banning under-16s from social media won’t fix that.

The Greens are opposed to the idea too - with both parties saying it could just lead to kids using what they’re calling “fringe websites”, instead.

So the harm will still be there and the kids will keep finding it, whether-or-not there’s a social media ban.

As to why I’m against this idea. Number One: the horse has already bolted. Number Two: the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that’s what happens in the online world and the technology world.

If politicians think banning kids under-16 from Tik Tok and Insta and YouTube is the answer, they’re dreaming.

What’s more, if we’re totally honest with ourselves, a social media ban would just let parents off the hook.

Those parents at the supermarket, pushing their kids around in the trolley, and the kids all staring at screens - should the government be coming to their rescue because they either can’t be bothered or are too weak to say no?

Of course not.

Experts from Queensland University think 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.

Nevertheless, a bunch of politicians who are already way behind the 8 ball on this think a social media ban for under-16s is the way to go.

LISTEN ABOVE

You know what the Government should do with this recommendation from a parliamentary select committee to ban under-16s from using social media? Ignore it.
With the Government thinking about copying Australia’s ban, a select committee has looked into it and it’s come back with a whole lot of recommendations relating to the online world - including a recommendation that we go ahead with a ban.
The committee says: “Harm to young New Zealanders from online platforms is severe and requires urgent responses.”
The key word there is “harm” and, as the ACT Party is saying today, banning under-16s from social media won’t fix that.
The Greens are opposed to the idea too - with both parties saying it could just lead to kids using what they’re calling “fringe websites”, instead.
So the harm will still be there and the kids will keep finding it, whether-or-not there’s a social media ban.
As to why I’m against this idea. Number One: the horse has already bolted. Number Two: the horse is going to keep on bolting. Because that’s what happens in the online world and the technology world.
If politicians think banning kids under-16 from Tik Tok and Insta and YouTube is the answer, they’re dreaming.
What’s more, if we’re totally honest with ourselves, a social media ban would just let parents off the hook.
Those parents at the supermarket, pushing their kids around in the trolley, and the kids all staring at screens - should the government be coming to their rescue because they either can’t be bothered or are too weak to say no?
Of course not.
Experts from Queensland University think 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.
Nevertheless, a bunch of politicians who are already way behind the 8 ball on this think a social media ban for under-16s is the way to go.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Social media ban gets no likes from me

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/216b96ac-ef67-454d-9448-b4040187b541/transcript

Politics Friday with Matt Doocey and Megan Woods: Immigration and overstayers, justice system, housing intensification

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips