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

I don’t know if I’m going to make any friends in Governors Bay, especially with the people involved with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust.  

Because I think their call that the city council stop charging them interest on a loan it gave them to get the project across the line is, at best, unrealistic. They are dreaming.   

I remember the first time I went to the rebuilt jetty after it was re-opened last year. It was a beautiful evening. Very still. One of those brilliant evenings on the peninsula. And I was really impressed.  

I’d been to the old jetty plenty of times —that was before it was damaged in the earthquakes— but the new jetty was quite something. Still is quite something.   

If you’ve been there, you’ve probably walked up-and-down reading the plaques with the names of all the people and the outfits that gave money to the project. Who only gave money because of those volunteers who decided that the community was going to get its jetty back and who did an absolutely brilliant job making it happen.   

Especially when you consider that the city council originally thought it would cost $7.8 million, and these volunteers managed to get it done for $3.8 million. So around about half as much as the council was talking about.   

They did it after the council decided that, because it was going to cost so much, it wasn’t worth doing.   

Not that it wiped its hands completely, it sold the jetty to the trust for $1 and chipped-in $1.75 million of ratepayer money. It also gave the trust an $850,000 loan at 4% for four-and-a-half years.  

So the jetty is back. Everyone happy.   

Well, not quite. Because after all the heart and soul these volunteers put into raising the money to get it re-built, they’ve run out of puff.  

They’ve worked out that, just to pay the interest on the loan from the city council, they’d have to have the equivalent of a fundraising sausage sizzle every weekend for the next three years. That’s just to pay the interest.  

So this week they’ve been to the council, asking it to drop the interest on the loan. The council has said “no can do”. And I’m with the council.  

For the exact same reason that the council has given to the jetty people – that, if it agreed to flag the interest on their loan, it would set a dangerous precedent.  

Not that the city council is unanimous on this one – Councillor Aaron Keown reckons the council should drop the interest on the loan. He thinks that, instead of setting a dangerous or a problematic precedent, it would actually encourage more community groups to take on these types of projects.   

His view is that if you look at the jetty project, the volunteers managed to get the rebuild done for half the amount the council thought it was going to cost. And he’s saying today that “if it delivers infrastructure at half the price, it is good precedent setting.” 

Which Aaron, with respect, is a pretty weak argument.   

It’s a weak argument because if the council gives on this one, not only will it have other outfits that it’s leant money to knocking on the door wanting their interest waived, it will also have others applying for council loans with 0% interest from the get-go.  

There will be a stampede of people wanting free money from the council, and it will be pretty hard for the council to say no if it gives-in and flags the interest on the loan for the Governors Bay jetty.  

I mean I get what this volunteer group is saying – that after 10 years working on this project, they’re worn out. But they knew when they took out the loan with the council, what the conditions were.  

They knew the terms. It’s not like you or I can go to the bank asking them to stop charging us interest on our mortgage because we’re a bit tired, because it means we have to work more than we really want to.  

The bank would tell us where to go. Which is what the council is doing too, as it should, to the jetty restoration people.  

Yes, the jetty is an asset for the community. Yes, the fact that it’s been re-built much cheaper than what the council thought it would cost is brilliant. Yes, it is another fantastic example of a community recovering from the earthquakes. It ticks all of those boxes. 

But it still doesn’t change my view that the jetty restoration people need to accept the conditions they signed-up to when they took the loan out with the council. And the council is absolutely doing the right thing refusing to stop charging them interest.   

I don’t know if I’m going to make any friends in Governors Bay, especially with the people involved with the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust. &nbsp;
Because I think their call that the city council stop charging them interest on a loan it gave them to get the project across the line is, at best, unrealistic. They are dreaming. &nbsp;&nbsp;
I remember the first time I went to the rebuilt jetty after it was re-opened last year. It was a beautiful evening. Very still. One of those brilliant evenings on the peninsula. And I was really impressed. &nbsp;
I’d been to the old jetty plenty of times —that was before it was damaged in the earthquakes— but the new jetty was quite something. Still is quite something. &nbsp;&nbsp;
If you’ve been there, you’ve probably walked up-and-down reading the plaques with the names of all the people and the outfits that gave money to the project. Who only gave money because of those volunteers who decided that the community was going to get its jetty back and who did an absolutely brilliant job making it happen. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Especially when you consider that the city council originally thought it would cost $7.8 million, and these volunteers managed to get it done for $3.8 million. So around about half as much as the council was talking about. &nbsp;&nbsp;
They did it after the council decided that, because it was going to cost so much, it wasn’t worth doing. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Not that it wiped its hands completely, it sold the jetty to the trust for $1 and chipped-in $1.75 million of ratepayer money. It also gave the trust an $850,000 loan at 4% for four-and-a-half years. &nbsp;
So the jetty is back. Everyone happy. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Well, not quite. Because after all the heart and soul these volunteers put into raising the money to get it re-built, they’ve run out of puff. &nbsp;
They’ve worked out that, just to pay the interest on the loan from the city council, they’d have to have the equivalent of a fundraising sausage sizzle every weekend for the next three years. That’s just to pay the interest. &nbsp;
So this week they’ve been to the council, asking it to drop the interest on the loan. The council has said “no can do”. And I’m with the council. &nbsp;
For the exact same reason that the council has given to the jetty people – that, if it agreed to flag the interest on their loan, it would set a dangerous precedent. &nbsp;
Not that the city council is unanimous on this one – Councillor Aaron Keown reckons the council should drop the interest on the loan. He thinks that, instead of setting a dangerous or a problematic precedent, it would actually encourage more community groups to take on these types of projects. &nbsp;&nbsp;
His view is that if you look at the jetty project, the volunteers managed to get the rebuild done for half the amount the council thought it was going to cost. And he’s saying today that “if it delivers infrastructure at half the price, it is good precedent setting.”&nbsp;
Which Aaron, with respect, is a pretty weak argument. &nbsp;&nbsp;
It’s a weak argument because if the council gives on this one, not only will it have other outfits that it’s leant money to knocking on the door wanting their interest waived, it will also have others applying for council loans with 0% interest from the get-go. &nbsp;
There will be a stampede of people wanting free money from the council, and it will be pretty hard for the council to say no if it gives-in and flags the interest on the loan for the Governors Bay jetty. &nbsp;
I mean I get what this volunteer group is saying – that after 10 years working on this project, they’re worn out. But they knew when they took out the loan with the council, what the conditions were. &nbsp;
They knew the terms. It’s not like you or I can go to the bank asking them to stop charging us interest on our mortgage because we’re a bit tired, because it means we have to work more than we really want to. &nbsp;
The bank would tell us where to go. Which is what the council is doing too, as it should, to the jetty restoration people. &nbsp;
Yes, the jetty is an asset for the community. Yes, the fact that it’s been re-built much cheaper than what the council thought it would cost is brilliant. Yes, it is another fantastic example of a community recovering from the earthquakes. It ticks all of those boxes.&nbsp;
But it still doesn’t change my view that the jetty restoration people need to accept the conditions they signed-up to when they took the loan out with the council. And the council is absolutely doing the right thing refusing to stop charging them interest. &nbsp;&nbsp;

John MacDonald: Jetty restoration group's zero-interest pipedream

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c015124d-8598-4374-9a70-b230001c6975/transcript

Today’s the day when one of the most ridiculous laws we’ve ever seen in this country starts being enforced by the police.  

As of midnight last night, it is illegal for gang members to wear their patches out in public. Not only that - the Government also wants the cops to stop gang members hanging-out together in public.  

As far as I’m concerned, this is just another placebo policy. A policy that might make us feel good but won’t actually make much difference.  

And instead the Government should just be letting the cops do more of the great work they’ve been doing to crack down on the criminal activities we know gang members are involved in.  

The Comancheros are a perfect example. Remember back in September when the cops arrested pretty much every Comanchero member in the country after that three-year undercover operation?  

They charged them with importing and selling drugs, running what was described as a pretty elaborate money laundering scheme, and running military training camps run by a former US marine.  

I know we said at the time that it probably wasn’t going to spell the end of the Comancheros in New Zealand. Well, I did anyway. That’s because they’re a gang that actually has clout and international connections.  

Nevertheless, the police have shown us what can happen if they’re just allowed to get on with it. And if the Government was serious with all its talk about making life difficult for the gangs, then it wouldn’t be telling the cops to go searching for gang patches in hanky drawers.   

What I’m saying is we should be focussing on the crimes already being committed by gang members instead of creating another crime - which is what this new law coming into force today is doing.  

In fact, I’d go as far as agreeing with a gang guy I saw on the news last night who said that this gang patch ban criminalises people for doing something where there are actually no victims.  

Think about it: if you see someone going down the street wearing a gang patch - does that make you a victim? Now you might say, well yes it does because whenever you see a gang patch you might feel uncomfortable.  

But does that make you a victim? I don’t think it does. There are all sorts of people out there who make me feel uncomfortable or intimidated, and they aren’t necessarily gang members.  

Tell that to the new police commissioner Richard Chambers, though, who you might have heard speaking with Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago.  

Mike was talking to him about the new job and asked him what he thought about these new gang laws, and he said “well, funny you should ask”.   

He didn’t actually put it that way, but he did say that in Hastings at three minutes past midnight —mere minutes after the laws came into force— police stopped a gang member travelling in a vehicle. The gang member was wearing a patch, and so they dished out their first charge under the new law.  

The thing is —and the Police Commissioner knows this— stopping one guy in a car is a different kettle of fish from dealing with a whole lot of gang members in one spot.  

Or going into the homes of gang members and having a nosey around for gang patches, because that’s what the cops are expected to do from today. To go through hanky drawers and wardrobes and pull out the patches if there’s a gang member with criminal convictions living there. What a waste of time and resources.  

Another gang person in the news today who I agree with as well is lifetime Black Power member and community advocate Denis O‘Reilly.   

He’s saying: “This legislation is just pandering to an anxious, white, middle-class population, who the research demonstrates are the people least likely to be affected by gang activity.”  

And he’s spot on. 

That’s why I’m calling this a placebo policy. Because making life difficult for gangs isn’t taking their patches off them or throwing the book at them if they’re caught wearing them in public. Because a gang member doesn’t have to wear a patch to tell the world which gang they’re in.  

Making life difficult for them is infiltrating their networks. Cracking down on all the illegal stuff they’re involved in. Which is why I think the gangs are going to be winners in this so-called crackdown on gang patches and gang’s congregating in public. 

Today’s the day when one of the most ridiculous laws we’ve ever seen in this country starts being enforced by the police. &nbsp;
As of midnight last night, it is illegal for gang members to wear their patches out in public. Not only that - the Government also wants the cops to stop gang members hanging-out together in public. &nbsp;
As far as I’m concerned, this is just another placebo policy. A policy that might make us feel good but won’t actually make much difference. &nbsp;
And instead the Government should just be letting the cops do more of the great work they’ve been doing to crack down on the criminal activities we know gang members are involved in. &nbsp;
The Comancheros are a perfect example. Remember back in September when the cops arrested pretty much every Comanchero member in the country after that three-year undercover operation? &nbsp;
They charged them with importing and selling drugs, running what was described as a pretty elaborate money laundering scheme, and running military training camps run by a former US marine. &nbsp;
I know we said at the time that it probably wasn’t going to spell the end of the Comancheros in New Zealand. Well, I did anyway. That’s because they’re a gang that actually has clout and international connections. &nbsp;
Nevertheless, the police have shown us what can happen if they’re just allowed to get on with it. And if the Government was serious with all its talk about making life difficult for the gangs, then it wouldn’t be telling the cops to go searching for gang patches in hanky drawers. &nbsp;&nbsp;
What I’m saying is we should be focussing on the crimes already being committed by gang members instead of creating another crime - which is what this new law coming into force today is doing. &nbsp;
In fact, I’d go as far as agreeing with a gang guy I saw on the news last night who said that this gang patch ban criminalises people for doing something where there are actually no victims. &nbsp;
Think about it: if you see someone going down the street wearing a gang patch - does that make you a victim? Now you might say, well yes it does because whenever you see a gang patch you might feel uncomfortable. &nbsp;
But does that make you a victim? I don’t think it does. There are all sorts of people out there who make me feel uncomfortable or intimidated, and they aren’t necessarily gang members. &nbsp;
Tell that to the new police commissioner Richard Chambers, though, who you might have heard speaking with Mike Hosking a couple of hours ago. &nbsp;
Mike was talking to him about the new job and asked him what he thought about these new gang laws, and he said “well, funny you should ask”. &nbsp;&nbsp;
He didn’t actually put it that way, but he did say that in Hastings at three minutes past midnight —mere minutes after the laws came into force— police stopped a gang member travelling in a vehicle. The gang member was wearing a patch, and so they dished out their first charge under the new law. &nbsp;
The thing is —and the Police Commissioner knows this— stopping one guy in a car is a different kettle of fish from dealing with a whole lot of gang members in one spot. &nbsp;
Or going into the homes of gang members and having a nosey around for gang patches, because that’s what the cops are expected to do from today. To go through hanky drawers and wardrobes and pull out the patches if there’s a gang member with criminal convictions living there. What a waste of time and resources. &nbsp;
Another gang person in the news today who I agree with as well is lifetime Black Power member and community advocate Denis O‘Reilly. &nbsp;&nbsp;
He’s saying: “This legislation is just pandering to an anxious, white, middle-class population, who the research demonstrates are the people least likely to be affected by gang activity.” &nbsp;
And he’s spot on.&nbsp;
That’s why I’m calling this a placebo policy. Because making life difficult for gangs isn’t taking their patches off them or throwing the book at them if they’re caught wearing them in public. Because a gang member doesn’t have to wear a patch to tell the world which gang they’re in. &nbsp;
Making life difficult for them is infiltrating their networks. Cracking down on all the illegal stuff they’re involved in. Which is why I think the gangs are going to be winners in this so-called crackdown on gang patches and gang’s congregating in public.&nbsp;

John MacDonald: Here's how to really make life difficult for gangs

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/e06ca623-4b1e-471e-8f2f-b22e018a61aa/transcript

I can’t accuse NZ First MP Shane Jones of being pale, male, and stale. But he is male, and he is stale with these comments of his about the way some MPs are dressing in Parliament. I do agree with him, though, that some of the rules in Parliament need toughening up.   

This has all been stirred-up after the MPs did their haka in Parliament last week.  

Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour are saying that the rules governing how things are supposed to run in the House aren't up to scratch.  

I was reading that the toughest personal penalty that an MP can face for playing up in the debating chamber is $1,000. Which is chicken feed when you consider the salaries MPs are on.  

So MPs on Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee are going to look into it and see if they can come up with some stiffer penalties for MPs who break the rules.  

Officially, these rules are known as Standing Orders and it is the Standing Orders Committee which is responsible for reviewing and considering the rules that govern how the House operates.  

So Shane Jones is happy about that. He’s also happy to let the Standing Orders Committee decide what changes might be needed. But he also reckons they need to get tough on dress standards, as well, in Parliament.  

He thinks the way some MPs dress, they look like "scarecrows".    

But I’m not upset about cowboy hats and feathers in Parliament. That’s because Parliament is, after all, the House of Representatives. Meaning the politicians in that House are supposed to be representative of us.  

And, if you’re somewhere right now where there are other people, take a look around. Is everyone dressed the same? Of course they’re not. Are all the guys in suits and ties? I bet they aren’t. And are all the women wearing smart business suits? I bet they’re not, either.  

Whether we like it or not, dress standards generally have changed. You might say they’ve gone backwards. I wouldn’t describe it that way.   

The point I’m making is that Parliament needs to reflect the real world. And the real world includes people dressing in cowboy hats. And feathers too, at times.  

But where I am with Shane Jones and Christopher Luxon, though, is the need to ensure that the rules that determine how Parliament is run and what is expected of MPs and the consequences for breaking those rules need toughening up.  

Reason being that there would not be any other workplace in the country where aggressive behaviour would be tolerated.  

And I’m not being anti-haka here, but what happened in Parliament last week was aggressive. The All Blacks’ haka is aggressive, and the haka in Parliament on Thursday was aggressive. Just like Julie-Anne Genter was aggressive when she went nuts at Matt Doocey in the House earlier this year.  

And that’s where the rules —or, at least, the punishments for breaking the rules— need a good look at.  

Because, just like people wearing cowboy hats and feathers is part of the real world, we should also be seeing our Parliament run in a way that gives MPs the same protections that all workers in this country expect when it comes to not being treated aggressively and being respected. 

I can’t accuse NZ First MP Shane Jones of being pale, male, and stale. But he is male, and he is stale with these comments of his about the way some MPs are dressing in Parliament. I do agree with him, though, that some of the rules in Parliament need toughening up. &nbsp;&nbsp;
This has all been stirred-up after the MPs did their haka in Parliament last week. &nbsp;
Shane Jones and ACT leader David Seymour are saying that the rules governing how things are supposed to run in the House aren't up to scratch. &nbsp;
I was reading that the toughest personal penalty that an MP can face for playing up in the debating chamber is $1,000. Which is chicken feed when you consider the salaries MPs are on. &nbsp;
So MPs on Parliament’s Standing Orders Committee are going to look into it and see if they can come up with some stiffer penalties for MPs who break the rules. &nbsp;
Officially, these rules are known as Standing Orders and it is the Standing Orders Committee which is responsible for reviewing and considering the rules that govern how the House operates. &nbsp;
So Shane Jones is happy about that. He’s also happy to let the Standing Orders Committee decide what changes might be needed. But he also reckons they need to get tough on dress standards, as well, in Parliament. &nbsp;
He thinks the way some MPs dress, they look like "scarecrows". &nbsp; &nbsp;
But I’m not upset about cowboy hats and feathers in Parliament. That’s because Parliament is, after all, the House of Representatives. Meaning the politicians in that House are supposed to be representative of us. &nbsp;
And, if you’re somewhere right now where there are other people, take a look around. Is everyone dressed the same? Of course they’re not. Are all the guys in suits and ties? I bet they aren’t. And are all the women wearing smart business suits? I bet they’re not, either. &nbsp;
Whether we like it or not, dress standards generally have changed. You might say they’ve gone backwards. I wouldn’t describe it that way. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The point I’m making is that Parliament needs to reflect the real world. And the real world includes people dressing in cowboy hats. And feathers too, at times. &nbsp;
But where I am with Shane Jones and Christopher Luxon, though, is the need to ensure that the rules that determine how Parliament is run and what is expected of MPs and the consequences for breaking those rules need toughening up. &nbsp;
Reason being that there would not be any other workplace in the country where aggressive behaviour would be tolerated. &nbsp;
And I’m not being anti-haka here, but what happened in Parliament last week was aggressive. The All Blacks’ haka is aggressive, and the haka in Parliament on Thursday was aggressive. Just like Julie-Anne Genter was aggressive when she went nuts at Matt Doocey in the House earlier this year. &nbsp;
And that’s where the rules —or, at least, the punishments for breaking the rules— need a good look at. &nbsp;
Because, just like people wearing cowboy hats and feathers is part of the real world, we should also be seeing our Parliament run in a way that gives MPs the same protections that all workers in this country expect when it comes to not being treated aggressively and being respected.&nbsp;

John MacDonald: Cowboy hats and feathers? Yes. Bad behaviour? No

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/c13057a3-2182-45ab-8e3c-b22e0000b2fd/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