John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this morning for Politics Friday. They discussed whether the new gang patch law will make a difference to crime numbers, and why the Government is pushing on with the boot camp legislation while the trials are ongoing. 

They also discussed behaviour in Parliament, particularly following Erica Stanford’s apology after insulting Jan Tinetti in the House. Is it time for more serious action? Are standards slipping? 

Labour MP Duncan Webb claims Education Minister Erica Stanford has muttered insults in the House for some time. 

Stanford apologised yesterday after Education shadow-minister Jan Tinetti accused her of using a swear word to describe her. 

Parliament's microphones and Hansard recording did not pick it up. 

Webb raised a point of order, and told John MacDonald that Stanford is a repeat offender.  

He says this is just one instance where the Minister over-stepped the mark, and he decided it shouldn't, couldn't continue. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

John MacDonald was joined by National’s Vanessa Weenink and Labour’s Duncan Webb this morning for Politics Friday. They discussed whether the new gang patch law will make a difference to crime numbers, and why the Government is pushing on with the boot camp legislation while the trials are ongoing.&nbsp;
They also discussed behaviour in Parliament, particularly following Erica Stanford’s apology after insulting Jan Tinetti in the House. Is it time for more serious action? Are standards slipping?&nbsp;
Labour MP Duncan Webb claims Education Minister Erica Stanford has muttered insults in the House for some time.&nbsp;
Stanford apologised yesterday after Education shadow-minister Jan Tinetti accused her of using a swear word to describe her.&nbsp;
Parliament's microphones and Hansard recording did not pick it up.&nbsp;
Webb raised a point of order, and told John MacDonald that Stanford is a repeat offender. &nbsp;
He says this is just one instance where the Minister over-stepped the mark, and he decided it shouldn't, couldn't continue.&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 National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Duncan Webb: Erica Stanford's insult in Parliament, gang patch ban, boot camps

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e19dea75-8a5d-4975-af79-b22f01876708/transcript

If you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - think again. 

 It’s one of many plans that are part of this overall 25-year strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. The big strategy was launched in 2021, which means it’s got about 22 years to run. 

 It’s got a big price tag too, the long-term strategy that is. $1.3 billion. And, as part of this latest action plan, the Government’s going to review how the money is being spent to make sure it’s focused and streamlined to make sure that every dollar being spent is making a difference. 

 As for the goal of eliminating family violence and sexual violence by 2046, I think the harsh reality is that we’ll never eliminate it. But I’m not saying that we shouldn’t bother trying. 

I’m sure that if we spoke to someone involved in trying to end violence, they would say that the 25-year strategy is “aspirational”. They’d tell us that it’s something to aim for - which is better than the alternative. Which is doing nothing. 

And I’d agree with that. The question, though, is what you do to try and get somewhere towards eliminating violence. 

Which is why I said before, if you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - or nothing to do with you - then you need to think again. 

The obvious thing you can take from that is that we are all potential victims but also instigators of violence. 

You’ll know as well as I do that it’s not just people in certain parts of town who are at risk. Violence is everywhere. There’s violence in houses with kids' bikes and toys outside. There’s violence in houses where the cops turn up every now and then to have a word. But there’s also violence in houses with beautiful hedging and front gates that only open when someone presses a button. 

Physical violence, sexual violence, verbal violence, psychological violence. 

And if it isn’t you who has experienced some or all of those things. There’s a pretty good chance that someone you know has. 

It might be a friend, a relative, or that really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling.     

That friend, relative, or really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling could also be the one being violent behind those closed doors. 

Which is why this plan announced yesterday - and the bigger picture strategy that it's part of - will only achieve something if we do our bit. 

And when it comes down to it, doing our bit is pretty easy. It isn’t necessarily comfortable or pleasant or convenient. Because, doing our bit to reduce all kinds of violence, requires us to give a damn. 

It requires us to listen out for those raised voices across the fence. It requires us to do more than just shrug our shoulders and say “oh they’re at it again”. 

It requires us to run the risk of losing friendships or straining family relationships. Because if someone is picked up for acting violently or aggressively, I bet it must be damn embarrassing. 

Not to mention the fact that it can be very easy sometimes to convince ourselves that doing something or intervening will only make things worse for the person suffering the violent abuse.  

You know: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, he’ll just get more fired and up and then she’ll really wear it.” 

Or: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, there’ll be a rock through our window tonight.” 

See what I mean? But I genuinely believe that, if this stuff the Government’s going to do has any chance of succeeding, then we need to stop being a nation of scaredy cats. 

And I’m including myself there. Because there have probably been countless times where I’ve turned a blind eye or considered myself too busy - or any of the millions of excuses we can be very good at coming up with to avoid “getting involved”. 

“That yelling next door’s been going on for quite some time now - maybe I should poke my head in. But if I don’t get to the supermarket, there’ll be nothing for the lunches.” 

Driving home late at night. “That young woman back there looked pretty drunk - she probably shouldn’t be out on her own like that. Maybe I should go back and check on her. But I’ve got an early start. Need to get some sleep.”  

Time and time and time again we come up with excuses not to do anything. And that is what needs to change. 

For me, that is the one big thing we could all do to really make a difference and to give this 25-year plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence by 2046 some chance of success. 

LISTEN ABOVE

If you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - think again.&nbsp;
&nbsp;It’s one of many plans that are part of this overall 25-year strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. The big strategy was launched in 2021, which means it’s got about 22 years to run.&nbsp;
&nbsp;It’s got a big price tag too, the long-term strategy that is. $1.3 billion. And, as part of this latest action plan, the Government’s going to review how the money is being spent to make sure it’s focused and streamlined to make sure that every dollar being spent is making a difference.&nbsp;
&nbsp;As for the goal of eliminating family violence and sexual violence by 2046, I think the harsh reality is that we’ll never eliminate it. But I’m not saying that we shouldn’t bother trying.&nbsp;
I’m sure that if we spoke to someone involved in trying to end violence, they would say that the 25-year strategy is “aspirational”. They’d tell us that it’s something to aim for - which is better than the alternative. Which is doing nothing.&nbsp;
And I’d agree with that. The question, though, is what you do to try and get somewhere towards eliminating violence.&nbsp;
Which is why I said before, if you think the violence action plan announced by the Government yesterday has no relevance to your life - or nothing to do with you - then you need to think again.&nbsp;
The obvious thing you can take from that is that we are all potential victims but also instigators of violence.&nbsp;
You’ll know as well as I do that it’s not just people in certain parts of town who are at risk. Violence is everywhere. There’s violence in houses with kids' bikes and toys outside. There’s violence in houses where the cops turn up every now and then to have a word. But there’s also violence in houses with beautiful hedging and front gates that only open when someone presses a button.&nbsp;
Physical violence, sexual violence, verbal violence, psychological violence.&nbsp;
And if it isn’t you who has experienced some or all of those things. There’s a pretty good chance that someone you know has.&nbsp;
It might be a friend, a relative, or that really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling. &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;
That friend, relative, or really friendly neighbour down the street who always seems to be smiling could also be the one being violent behind those closed doors.&nbsp;
Which is why this plan announced yesterday - and the bigger picture strategy that it's part of - will only achieve something if we do our bit.&nbsp;
And when it comes down to it, doing our bit is pretty easy. It isn’t necessarily comfortable or pleasant or convenient. Because, doing our bit to reduce all kinds of violence, requires us to give a damn.&nbsp;
It requires us to listen out for those raised voices across the fence. It requires us to do more than just shrug our shoulders and say “oh they’re at it again”.&nbsp;
It requires us to run the risk of losing friendships or straining family relationships. Because if someone is picked up for acting violently or aggressively, I bet it must be damn embarrassing.&nbsp;
Not to mention the fact that it can be very easy sometimes to convince ourselves that doing something or intervening will only make things worse for the person suffering the violent abuse. &nbsp;
You know: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, he’ll just get more fired and up and then she’ll really wear it.”&nbsp;
Or: “If I go over there now or if I ring the cops, there’ll be a rock through our window tonight.”&nbsp;
See what I mean? But I genuinely believe that, if this stuff the Government’s going to do has any chance of succeeding, then we need to stop being a nation of scaredy cats.&nbsp;
And I’m including myself there. Because there have probably been countless times where I’ve turned a blind eye or considered myself too busy - or any of the millions of excuses we can be very good at coming up with to avoid “getting involved”.&nbsp;
“That yelling next door’s been going on for quite some time now - maybe I should poke my head in. But if I don’t get to the supermarket, there’ll be nothing for the lunches.”&nbsp;
Driving home late at night. “That young woman back there looked pretty drunk - she probably shouldn’t be out on her own like that. Maybe I should go back and check on her. But I’ve got an early start. Need to get some sleep.” &nbsp;
Time and time and time again we come up with excuses not to do anything. And that is what needs to change.&nbsp;
For me, that is the one big thing we could all do to really make a difference and to give this 25-year plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence by 2046 some chance of success.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Ending violence - a challenge for all of us

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/426f73e6-0268-4957-b259-b248000430ab/transcript

Even as a scooter rider, I think these motorcyclists who are kicking up a fuss about their ACC levies going through the roof don’t have a leg to stand on. 

It’s quite possible too that the motorbike guys will think that someone who rides a 2-stroke Vespa isn’t even a real motorcyclist.  

And they’re free to think that, but even though the ACC levy is going to increase by almost 80% over the next three years, you won’t find me running off to the Human Rights Commission.  

I’m not joking there either, because that’s exactly what Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand has done.   

So here are the numbers: in three years’ time the ACC levy for anyone who registers a motorbike will be $532. At the moment, it’s $297. So, yes, a truckload more money. It’s an increase of nearly 80%.  

And the motorbike people think they’re being unfairly targeted when you consider that the ACC levy for car drivers in that same three-year time period is going to go from $42 a year to $64 for drivers of petrol cars. For EV drivers, the levy will go from $42 a year to $122 a year.  

So the motorbike people have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, saying it isn’t fair that they’ll be paying more than $800 a year when car drivers will only be paying a maximum of $122 a year.  

They say it would be much fairer if everyone just paid a flat rate of $140, but I disagree.   

In their complaint to the Human Rights Commission, they say that as a minority group of New Zealand citizens, motorcyclists are being unfairly singled-out and the increases will particularly affect people on low incomes who rely on motorbikes as an affordable form of transport.  

Here’s a quote from their submission: “Although motorcyclists only account for only 0.26 percent of all ACC accident claims, they bear a disproportionately high financial burden.”  

So you look at that stat, and it could be very easy to think that they have a good point. If so few ACC claims are being made by motorcyclists, why are they paying way more than other people on the road? But it’s not about the number of crashes - it’s about the severity of the injuries.  

For me, it comes down to the fact that —when you’re on the road on two wheels— you are at so much more risk. And I don’t have a stat to back this up but I bet you that when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash, chances are they require a lot more medical care than someone in a car.  

That’s what ACC itself says too – it says the cost to the country of motorcycle accidents is extremely expensive.  

This is because of the kinds of injuries someone can get if they’re on a motorbike and get involved in a crash.  

And, unfortunately, a lot of the time those crashes aren’t caused by the motorcyclists themselves, they’re caused by muppets in cars and other vehicles.  

If you’ve ever ridden a motorbike or a scooter, you’ll know how key it is to make sure that other drivers have seen you. Example: when you’re heading down the road on your motorbike and there’s a car approaching an intersection on your left.  

You can never be sure they’ve seen you unless you catch their eye. I do it every time, try to make sure I catch their eye. Always have. Because, quite often, what I find is that the car driver at the intersection is actually looking beyond you.   

They’re looking out for larger vehicles and they can completely miss you.  

Not that us motorbike and scooter riders are completely innocent, either. I don’t know how many times I’ve given into the temptation —when traffic’s at a standstill— to undertake, and ride through the space to the left of the built-up traffic.  

I don’t know how many times I’ve said to myself I’m never doing that again and I have done it again.  

Nevertheless, riding a motorbike or a motor scooter is not compulsory. It is a choice. It is a choice that motorcyclists make knowing full well that riding on two-wheels is way riskier than riding on two wheels.  

And, because we acknowledge that risk, we also need to accept that if we come to grief, chances are we’re going to need more support from the health system.  

And, because of that, we have no reason to complain about paying higher ACC levies than other road users.  

Even as a scooter rider, I think these motorcyclists who are kicking up a fuss about their ACC levies going through the roof don’t have a leg to stand on.&nbsp;
It’s quite possible too that the motorbike guys will think that someone who rides a 2-stroke Vespa isn’t even a real motorcyclist. &nbsp;
And they’re free to think that, but even though the ACC levy is going to increase by almost 80% over the next three years, you won’t find me running off to the Human Rights Commission. &nbsp;
I’m not joking there either, because that’s exactly what Motorcycle Advocacy Group New Zealand has done. &nbsp;&nbsp;
So here are the numbers: in three years’ time the ACC levy for anyone who registers a motorbike will be $532. At the moment, it’s $297. So, yes, a truckload more money. It’s an increase of nearly 80%. &nbsp;
And the motorbike people think they’re being unfairly targeted when you consider that the ACC levy for car drivers in that same three-year time period is going to go from $42 a year to $64 for drivers of petrol cars. For EV drivers, the levy will go from $42 a year to $122 a year. &nbsp;
So the motorbike people have lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, saying it isn’t fair that they’ll be paying more than $800 a year when car drivers will only be paying a maximum of $122 a year. &nbsp;
They say it would be much fairer if everyone just paid a flat rate of $140, but I disagree. &nbsp;&nbsp;
In their complaint to the Human Rights Commission, they say that as a minority group of New Zealand citizens, motorcyclists are being unfairly singled-out and the increases will particularly affect people on low incomes who rely on motorbikes as an affordable form of transport. &nbsp;
Here’s a quote from their submission: “Although motorcyclists only account for only 0.26 percent of all ACC accident claims, they bear a disproportionately high financial burden.” &nbsp;
So you look at that stat, and it could be very easy to think that they have a good point. If so few ACC claims are being made by motorcyclists, why are they paying way more than other people on the road? But it’s not about the number of crashes - it’s about the severity of the injuries. &nbsp;
For me, it comes down to the fact that —when you’re on the road on two wheels— you are at so much more risk. And I don’t have a stat to back this up but I bet you that when a motorcyclist is involved in a crash, chances are they require a lot more medical care than someone in a car. &nbsp;
That’s what ACC itself says too – it says the cost to the country of motorcycle accidents is extremely expensive. &nbsp;
This is because of the kinds of injuries someone can get if they’re on a motorbike and get involved in a crash. &nbsp;
And, unfortunately, a lot of the time those crashes aren’t caused by the motorcyclists themselves, they’re caused by muppets in cars and other vehicles. &nbsp;
If you’ve ever ridden a motorbike or a scooter, you’ll know how key it is to make sure that other drivers have seen you. Example: when you’re heading down the road on your motorbike and there’s a car approaching an intersection on your left. &nbsp;
You can never be sure they’ve seen you unless you catch their eye. I do it every time, try to make sure I catch their eye. Always have. Because, quite often, what I find is that the car driver at the intersection is actually looking beyond you. &nbsp;&nbsp;
They’re looking out for larger vehicles and they can completely miss you. &nbsp;
Not that us motorbike and scooter riders are completely innocent, either. I don’t know how many times I’ve given into the temptation —when traffic’s at a standstill— to undertake, and ride through the space to the left of the built-up traffic. &nbsp;
I don’t know how many times I’ve said to myself I’m never doing that again and I have done it again. &nbsp;
Nevertheless, riding a motorbike or a motor scooter is not compulsory. It is a choice. It is a choice that motorcyclists make knowing full well that riding on two-wheels is way riskier than riding on two wheels. &nbsp;
And, because we acknowledge that risk, we also need to accept that if we come to grief, chances are we’re going to need more support from the health system. &nbsp;
And, because of that, we have no reason to complain about paying higher ACC levies than other road users. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: Motorcyclist ACC levies a human rights issue? Really?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/2d649f28-384e-4a71-beb8-b2450006d1c9/transcript

A regular weekly contributor to the show up until last year, Gerry Brownlee is finishing his first full year as Speaker of the House. 

Brownlee joined John MacDonald to reflect on his year amid the continuing drama in Parliament.  

He says has been a very democratic year in the chamber.  

When elected to the position this time last year, Brownlee said it was his job to protect MPs rights to speak freely. 

He says he feels he's done this job well, ensuring debate in the house was well facilitated.  

Brownlee says he's been particularly liberal in allowing MPs to express themselves –particularly in a parliament where there is a balanced opposition and Government.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

A regular weekly contributor to the show up until last year, Gerry Brownlee is finishing his first full year as Speaker of the House.&nbsp;
Brownlee joined John MacDonald to reflect on his year amid the continuing drama in Parliament. &nbsp;
He says has been a very democratic year in the chamber. &nbsp;
When elected to the position this time last year, Brownlee said it was his job to protect MPs rights to speak freely.&nbsp;
He says he feels he's done this job well, ensuring debate in the house was well facilitated. &nbsp;
Brownlee says he's been particularly liberal in allowing MPs to express themselves –particularly in a parliament where there is a balanced opposition and Government. &nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Gerry Brownlee: Speaker of the House reflects on his first year in the role

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/79c97d89-a866-429f-b4a4-b244018175bd/transcript

Politics Friday with National's Vanessa Weenink and Labour's Duncan Webb: Erica Stanford's insult in Parliament, gang patch ban, boot camps

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips