Today on Politics Friday, John was joined in studio by Labour's Megan Woods and National's Hamish Campbell. On today’s agenda:

Why, despite multiple reports, are children in New Zealand still being abused and losing their lives? Is it time for a cross-party commitment to ending this? 

What can be done about the drinking culture in New Zealand, is it time to look at either increasing prices or raising the drinking age again? 

Plus, they discuss the allegations of bullying towards Karen Chourr in Parliament. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Today on Politics Friday, John was joined in studio by Labour's Megan Woods and National's Hamish Campbell. On today’s agenda: 
Why, despite multiple reports, are children in New Zealand still being abused and losing their lives? Is it time for a cross-party commitment to ending this?  
What can be done about the drinking culture in New Zealand, is it time to look at either increasing prices or raising the drinking age again?  
Plus, they discuss the allegations of bullying towards Karen Chourr in Parliament.   
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 with Megan Woods and Hamish Campbell: NZ's drinking culture, child safety, Parliament bullying allegations

You might be thinking the revelation that at-risk kids in New Zealand are no safer than they were three years ago, when a 5-year-old boy was beaten, burned and murdered by his carer, has nothing to do with you. But think again.

Where this has all come from, is a report by the Independent Children's Monitor as to whether the care system in this country has improved since Malachi Subecz died after being abused for months by his “carer”, Michaela Barriball.

She’s in prison. When she was sent away, she was told it would be for, at least, 17 years.

And when that Malachi's story emerged, there was a lot of the tut-tutting and ‘this can’t happen again” talk. But it has happened again. More kids have been injured, more kids have been killed.

The Chief Children's Commissioner Claire Achmad said on Newstalk ZB this morning that an urgent response is needed, But based on past performance and experience, I don't think that will happen.

Because, if we were really serious, we would have done something before now. 

We would have done something before this report came out, telling us that at-risk kids are no safer than they were when Malachi was murdered. No safer, despite all the reports and the words and the reassurances that things will change and the serious faces. No safer.

And one of the reasons for that, is the so-called care and protection system in this country. 

After Malachi was murdered, a review was done and it came up with 14 recommendations to try and improve things and make kids safer. Guess how many of them have been acted on? One. The other 13 are gathering dust.

If I was to summarise what those recommendations were, a lot of them were about getting all the different government departments and agencies working better together, sharing information, and making sure kids like Malachi don’t fall between the cracks.

And let’s face it, that was never going to happen.

I don’t know if you’ve had experience of how government departments work —I have— and the last thing they do is share information and co-operate with other government departments. They protect their patches and their budgets and all they care about is jumping when the government minister in charge of them says jump.

In recent years they've been banging-on about this thing they call an “all of government response”. Probably one time that actually came close to working was during COVID, rest of the time: if it’s not their department, it’s not their department.

Which is why I have very little faith that our care and protection system is going to get any better than it is now. Where we have, as the Chief Children's Commissioner said this morning, one child on average dying every five weeks from homicide.

But the system isn’t the only problem. You and I - we have to up our game too.

Because we treat care and protection of at-risk kids the same way we treat pretty much everything else in this country. We get someone in to do it, we contract it out. Out of mind, out of sight.

You know: “We’re too busy dealing with our own stuff. We don’t have time to sort out deadbeat parents and caregivers.” That’s the attitude, isn’t it? 

But if we keep on having that attitude - that it’s up to the State to sort it; and if the State continues to completely fail these poor little kids; then we can write as many reports with as many recommendations as we like, but nothing is going to change.

You might be thinking the revelation that at-risk kids in New Zealand are no safer than they were three years ago, when a 5-year-old boy was beaten, burned and murdered by his carer, has nothing to do with you. But think again. 
Where this has all come from, is a report by the Independent Children's Monitor as to whether the care system in this country has improved since Malachi Subecz died after being abused for months by his “carer”, Michaela Barriball. 
She’s in prison. When she was sent away, she was told it would be for, at least, 17 years. 
And when that Malachi's story emerged, there was a lot of the tut-tutting and ‘this can’t happen again” talk. But it has happened again. More kids have been injured, more kids have been killed. 
The Chief Children's Commissioner Claire Achmad said on Newstalk ZB this morning that an urgent response is needed, But based on past performance and experience, I don't think that will happen. 
Because, if we were really serious, we would have done something before now.  
We would have done something before this report came out, telling us that at-risk kids are no safer than they were when Malachi was murdered. No safer, despite all the reports and the words and the reassurances that things will change and the serious faces. No safer. 
And one of the reasons for that, is the so-called care and protection system in this country.  
After Malachi was murdered, a review was done and it came up with 14 recommendations to try and improve things and make kids safer. Guess how many of them have been acted on? One. The other 13 are gathering dust. 
If I was to summarise what those recommendations were, a lot of them were about getting all the different government departments and agencies working better together, sharing information, and making sure kids like Malachi don’t fall between the cracks. 
And let’s face it, that was never going to happen. 
I don’t know if you’ve had experience of how government departments work —I have— and the last thing they do is share information and co-operate with other government departments. They protect their patches and their budgets and all they care about is jumping when the government minister in charge of them says jump. 
In recent years they've been banging-on about this thing they call an “all of government response”. Probably one time that actually came close to working was during COVID, rest of the time: if it’s not their department, it’s not their department. 
Which is why I have very little faith that our care and protection system is going to get any better than it is now. Where we have, as the Chief Children's Commissioner said this morning, one child on average dying every five weeks from homicide. 
But the system isn’t the only problem. You and I - we have to up our game too. 
Because we treat care and protection of at-risk kids the same way we treat pretty much everything else in this country. We get someone in to do it, we contract it out. Out of mind, out of sight. 
You know: “We’re too busy dealing with our own stuff. We don’t have time to sort out deadbeat parents and caregivers.” That’s the attitude, isn’t it?  
But if we keep on having that attitude - that it’s up to the State to sort it; and if the State continues to completely fail these poor little kids; then we can write as many reports with as many recommendations as we like, but nothing is going to change.

John MacDonald: Tutt-tutting and more reports won't save lives

How would you feel about rubbish from all over New Zealand and maybe even overseas being dumped in the South Island?

That’s what could be happening with this new waste-to-energy plant that is planned for South Canterbury. And I would be dead against it.

Fine, if burning rubbish to create energy is a good thing and can be done without munting the environment, go for it. But there’s no way I would be wanting rubbish from the North Island and overseas being brought here.

Why? Well, for starters, I don’t want the Canterbury region to be the rest of the country, and the world’s dumping ground. There are enough stories already about countries which accept our recycling waste saying ‘stop, no more’.

I’ve got other reasons too, which I’ll get to. 

So Glenavy —on State Highway One, not far from Waimate— that’s the site where an outfit, with a majority shareholder from China, wants to build this plant which would burn rubbish in a giant furnace and convert it to energy.

These plants are in other countries around the world, and they’re seen as a good alternative to landfill rubbish dumps. Instead of sticking rubbish in the ground, you burn it up and make power.

How they work is the burning of the rubbish creates steam which runs the turbines to make power, and whenever power comes up for discussion, waste-to-energy plants pretty much always gets a mention because some people see them as a better option than some of the other electricity generation alternatives that get talked about, such as using ocean currents.

What’s happened though is a few months back, the Overseas Investment Office provided advice to the Government on the Chinese company wanting to buy dairy farmland at Glenavy to put the processing plant on.

In that advice, which was prepared for Finance Minister Nicola Willis, officials say if the plant goes ahead, it should only accept rubbish from within the South Island.

This was advice from the Overseas Investment Office, which officials put together after getting input from Health NZ, the Ministry for the Environment, the Security Intelligence Service and Foreign Affairs and Trade.

So, they said in their report that “feedstock” for the plant —which is the technical term for the rubbish used to run the furnace— should only be sourced from within the South Island.

The reason the report went to the Finance Minister was that, primarily, it was her job to decide whether the purchase of the land by this largely foreign-owned company would be against New Zealand’s national interest. 

And, nine days after receiving the advice, she decided that it wouldn’t, and that the Government was comfortable with the Chinese company buying the land.

But, in the process she overrode the advice from officials that the plant only be allowed to truck-in rubbish from within the South Island. Instead, she decided that it should be left to the resource consent process to decide that. And, as far as I’m concerned, that could be bad news for the South Island.

Because, aside from the fact that I don’t want Canterbury becoming a dumping ground for the rest of New Zealand and other countries, can you imagine the truck movements between Christchurch and Glenavy that would be required on that goat track of a road that we call State Highway One?

These trucks would either come from Picton or they’d go from Lyttelton. Can you imagine the extra amount of traffic?

So the idea of this plant using rubbish from anywhere other than the South Island gets a big “no” from me.

How would you feel about rubbish from all over New Zealand and maybe even overseas being dumped in the South Island? 
That’s what could be happening with this new waste-to-energy plant that is planned for South Canterbury. And I would be dead against it. 
Fine, if burning rubbish to create energy is a good thing and can be done without munting the environment, go for it. But there’s no way I would be wanting rubbish from the North Island and overseas being brought here. 
Why? Well, for starters, I don’t want the Canterbury region to be the rest of the country, and the world’s dumping ground. There are enough stories already about countries which accept our recycling waste saying ‘stop, no more’. 
I’ve got other reasons too, which I’ll get to.  
So Glenavy —on State Highway One, not far from Waimate— that’s the site where an outfit, with a majority shareholder from China, wants to build this plant which would burn rubbish in a giant furnace and convert it to energy. 
These plants are in other countries around the world, and they’re seen as a good alternative to landfill rubbish dumps. Instead of sticking rubbish in the ground, you burn it up and make power. 
How they work is the burning of the rubbish creates steam which runs the turbines to make power, and whenever power comes up for discussion, waste-to-energy plants pretty much always gets a mention because some people see them as a better option than some of the other electricity generation alternatives that get talked about, such as using ocean currents. 
What’s happened though is a few months back, the Overseas Investment Office provided advice to the Government on the Chinese company wanting to buy dairy farmland at Glenavy to put the processing plant on. 
In that advice, which was prepared for Finance Minister Nicola Willis, officials say if the plant goes ahead, it should only accept rubbish from within the South Island. 
This was advice from the Overseas Investment Office, which officials put together after getting input from Health NZ, the Ministry for the Environment, the Security Intelligence Service and Foreign Affairs and Trade. 
So, they said in their report that “feedstock” for the plant —which is the technical term for the rubbish used to run the furnace— should only be sourced from within the South Island. 
The reason the report went to the Finance Minister was that, primarily, it was her job to decide whether the purchase of the land by this largely foreign-owned company would be against New Zealand’s national interest.  
And, nine days after receiving the advice, she decided that it wouldn’t, and that the Government was comfortable with the Chinese company buying the land. 
But, in the process she overrode the advice from officials that the plant only be allowed to truck-in rubbish from within the South Island. Instead, she decided that it should be left to the resource consent process to decide that. And, as far as I’m concerned, that could be bad news for the South Island. 
Because, aside from the fact that I don’t want Canterbury becoming a dumping ground for the rest of New Zealand and other countries, can you imagine the truck movements between Christchurch and Glenavy that would be required on that goat track of a road that we call State Highway One? 
These trucks would either come from Picton or they’d go from Lyttelton. Can you imagine the extra amount of traffic? 
So the idea of this plant using rubbish from anywhere other than the South Island gets a big “no” from me.

John MacDonald: Don't let Canterbury become the nation's dumping ground

How do you think I’m feeling about the Government's Māori wards bill passing its third reading in Parliament? 

Which means any local councils which established Māori wards without asking residents first will have to hold a referendum if they want to keep them. The same for any other councils that might want to in the future, as well. 

How do you think I’m feeling about that? I’m not feeling how Local Government Minister Simeon Brown is feeling. He’s saying today that it’s “a great day for democracy”.

I don’t think that at all. I think he’s over-cooking that one, big time. 

I don’t feel the same way about it as Labour leader Chris Hipkins, either, who is saying that it’s “embarrassing”.

But I am despairing, because this is a piece of legislation dealing with something that hurts no one. Having a Māori ward causes no harm to anyone.

Now I know that some people think having a separate ward for Māori voters does cause some sort of harm. And normally they claim that it causes racial division.

And, if they want to think that, then I can’t stop them. But I would ask anyone who thinks that: what harm does it do to you, personally? Does it make your life any worse? Does the idea of Māori wards make you less likely to get ahead in life?

Does a Māori ward somewhere make the groceries, or the power, or registering the car more expensive? Does it make you more likely to get crook with a serious illness? 

The answer to all of those questions is “no”. But, somehow, some people think Māori wards are a threat to democracy. Which is nonsense. 

Because how can a constituency of people electing someone to be their representative on a council somewhere possibly be undemocratic? It’s not.

Local Government Minister Simeon Brown is talking nonsense saying that forcing councils to have referendums before they can keep their Māori wards is a great day for democracy.

It’s not about democracy, at all. In the Minister’s own words on radio this morning, it’s about being anti-woke. Whatever that is.

It’s ideology and nothing else. Because Māori wards make no one’s life any worse - and getting rid of them won’t make anyone’s life any better.

And they will fade out because we know who the people are who bother voting in local body elections - because these referendums are going to be done at the same time as local body elections.

We know already, don’t we, what the results of these referendums are going to be because —generally— the people who can be bothered voting in their local council elections tend to sing from the same anti-woke songsheet as Simeon Brown.

What’s more, if the Government is going to sell its Māori ward legislation as a win for democracy, and if councils are now going to have to ask ratepayers for permission before they can keep or set-up a Māori ward, then they should also have to ask for public permission to do anything else they want to do, as well.

Now that would be democracy. But that’s not happening. Which is why it’s complete nonsense for the Government to claim that its crackdown on councils setting up Māori wards without asking for public approval first is a win for democracy.

How do you think I’m feeling about the Government's Māori wards bill passing its third reading in Parliament?  
Which means any local councils which established Māori wards without asking residents first will have to hold a referendum if they want to keep them. The same for any other councils that might want to in the future, as well.  
How do you think I’m feeling about that? I’m not feeling how Local Government Minister Simeon Brown is feeling. He’s saying today that it’s “a great day for democracy”. 
I don’t think that at all. I think he’s over-cooking that one, big time.  
I don’t feel the same way about it as Labour leader Chris Hipkins, either, who is saying that it’s “embarrassing”. 
But I am despairing, because this is a piece of legislation dealing with something that hurts no one. Having a Māori ward causes no harm to anyone. 
Now I know that some people think having a separate ward for Māori voters does cause some sort of harm. And normally they claim that it causes racial division. 
And, if they want to think that, then I can’t stop them. But I would ask anyone who thinks that: what harm does it do to you, personally? Does it make your life any worse? Does the idea of Māori wards make you less likely to get ahead in life? 
Does a Māori ward somewhere make the groceries, or the power, or registering the car more expensive? Does it make you more likely to get crook with a serious illness?  
The answer to all of those questions is “no”. But, somehow, some people think Māori wards are a threat to democracy. Which is nonsense.  
Because how can a constituency of people electing someone to be their representative on a council somewhere possibly be undemocratic? It’s not. 
Local Government Minister Simeon Brown is talking nonsense saying that forcing councils to have referendums before they can keep their Māori wards is a great day for democracy. 
It’s not about democracy, at all. In the Minister’s own words on radio this morning, it’s about being anti-woke. Whatever that is. 
It’s ideology and nothing else. Because Māori wards make no one’s life any worse - and getting rid of them won’t make anyone’s life any better. 
And they will fade out because we know who the people are who bother voting in local body elections - because these referendums are going to be done at the same time as local body elections. 
We know already, don’t we, what the results of these referendums are going to be because —generally— the people who can be bothered voting in their local council elections tend to sing from the same anti-woke songsheet as Simeon Brown. 
What’s more, if the Government is going to sell its Māori ward legislation as a win for democracy, and if councils are now going to have to ask ratepayers for permission before they can keep or set-up a Māori ward, then they should also have to ask for public permission to do anything else they want to do, as well. 
Now that would be democracy. But that’s not happening. Which is why it’s complete nonsense for the Government to claim that its crackdown on councils setting up Māori wards without asking for public approval first is a win for democracy.

Politics Friday with Megan Woods and Hamish Campbell: NZ's drinking culture, child safety, Parliament bullying allegations

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips