Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings was thrilled to host Charlie and Craig Reid of The Proclaimers live in the studio today. 

John talked to the Scottish legends about their musical journey, the new album 'Dentures Out', and their concert tonight in Christchurch, which is part of their biggest New Zealand tour to date. 

LISTEN ABOVE

Newstalk ZB's Canterbury Mornings was thrilled to host Charlie and Craig Reid of The Proclaimers live in the studio today. 
John talked to the Scottish legends about their musical journey, the new album 'Dentures Out', and their concert tonight in Christchurch, which is part of their biggest New Zealand tour to date. 
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

The Proclaimers: Rock duo on their musical journey, new album, and the Christchurch concert

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Reuben Davidson.  

Christchurch City Council is considering allowing unleashed dogs to run free in two central city parks – neither were fond of the idea. 

With the Investment Summit underway in Auckland, is Davidson disagreeing with his own party on the future of public-private partnerships? 

And Doocey believes there’s no reason to change the voting system for local body elections – do we just have too many councils? 

LISTEN ABOVE 

Today on Politics Friday, John MacDonald was joined by National’s Matt Doocey and Labour’s Reuben Davidson. &nbsp;
Christchurch City Council is considering allowing unleashed dogs to run free in two central city parks – neither were fond of the idea.&nbsp;
With the Investment Summit underway in Auckland, is Davidson disagreeing with his own party on the future of public-private partnerships?&nbsp;
And Doocey believes there’s no reason to change the voting system for local body elections – do we just have too many councils?&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE&nbsp;

Politics Friday with Matt Doocey and Reuben Davidson: Off-leash dogs, public-private partnerships, and local body elections

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/48d50d2b-323a-420a-9e2c-b2a0000782a5/transcript

Road rage is getting worse according to survey results out today, and I think it’s time we made road rage a specific criminal offence.   

I’ll come back to that but, first, how about this for a story? A guy’s driving around Governor’s Bay when this boy racer starts tailgating him, then stops in front of him, pulls out a baseball bat and starts smashing the guy’s windscreen.  

That was a week ago.   

Then we had someone else sent to prison last week after stabbing someone in an apparent road rage incident in Riccarton. It happened back in September on the corner of Blenheim Road and Clarence Street when two guys got into an argument.  

The guy who was sent to prison last week got out of his car with a pair of scissors and stabbed this other guy before taking off.  

He turned himself into the police sometime after that, and he was sentenced last week. 

So you consider cases like that and the incident in Governors Bay the weekend before last, and you think no wonder we’ve got new stats out today saying nearly 50% of Canterbury people think road rage has got worse here in the past year. It's 60% in Auckland.   

So, surely, the time has come for us to make road rage an actual criminal offence?  

At the moment, no one can be charged with road rage. It can lead to people being charged with things like assault, intent to injure, and reckless driving. But I think road rage needs to be made a specific offence.  

I see it in the same light as the stalking laws the Government wants to introduce. Like road rage, stalking can lead to people being charged with other offences.  

So why not do the same with road rage?  

AA Insurance has found that, broadly, 1-in-10 Kiwis have been involved in a road rage incident of some sort in the past year.  

They’ve experienced things like tailgating, being cut off by another driver, being tooted at excessively, and being yelled or screamed at by another driver.   

Exactly the sort of thing this guy on Banks Peninsula went through. According to his post on Facebook last night, it was 12:10am and this boy racer was tailgating him when he, obviously, at some point overtook this guy, stopped in front of him, got out with a baseball bat and started smashing up the guy’s car.  

And he’s now on Facebook asking people who live in the area if they’ve got any security footage that might help identify the vehicle involved.  

He’s trying to track-down a Rego number so the police can, maybe, do something about it. Because, according to his post, the police didn’t do anything on the night.  

Although the police have told our newsroom this morning that he was “unable to make a statement at the time” and was provided with information to help him report the incident online. The police did confirm that it was reported to them just after midnight on Sunday March 2.  

The guy who was attacked has posted a photo online showing the windscreen smashed on the driver’s side. It must have been absolutely terrifying for him.  

As Beau Paparoa, who is one of the bosses at AA Insurance, is saying today - things like tailgating not only increases the risk of rear-end collisions. It’s also distressing and dangerous for the people being tailgated.  

But it goes next level when you’ve got some muppet not only tailgating you, then passing you, and stopping right in front of you, and getting out of their car and taking to yours with a baseball bat.  

I don't think leaving things as they are and only charging people with other offences, and not charging them specifically with road rage, is going to do anything to fix the problem.  

From my experience, I would say road rage has been a major problem for a long time now. Whether I can say that I think it’s got worse here in the past 12 months, I don’t know, but a lot of people think it has.  

So surely the time has come to up the ante and make road rage a criminal offence.  

Road rage is getting worse according to survey results out today, and I think it’s time we made road rage a specific criminal offence. &nbsp;&nbsp;
I’ll come back to that but, first, how about this for a story? A guy’s driving around Governor’s Bay when this boy racer starts tailgating him, then stops in front of him, pulls out a baseball bat and starts smashing the guy’s windscreen. &nbsp;
That was a week ago. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Then we had someone else sent to prison last week after stabbing someone in an apparent road rage incident in Riccarton. It happened back in September on the corner of Blenheim Road and Clarence Street when two guys got into an argument. &nbsp;
The guy who was sent to prison last week got out of his car with a pair of scissors and stabbed this other guy before taking off. &nbsp;
He turned himself into the police sometime after that, and he was sentenced last week.&nbsp;
So you consider cases like that and the incident in Governors Bay the weekend before last, and you think no wonder we’ve got new stats out today saying nearly 50% of Canterbury people think road rage has got worse here in the past year. It's 60% in Auckland. &nbsp;&nbsp;
So, surely, the time has come for us to make road rage an actual criminal offence? &nbsp;
At the moment, no one can be charged with road rage. It can lead to people being charged with things like assault, intent to injure, and reckless driving. But I think road rage needs to be made a specific offence. &nbsp;
I see it in the same light as the stalking laws the Government wants to introduce. Like road rage, stalking can lead to people being charged with other offences. &nbsp;
So why not do the same with road rage? &nbsp;
AA Insurance has found that, broadly, 1-in-10 Kiwis have been involved in a road rage incident of some sort in the past year. &nbsp;
They’ve experienced things like tailgating, being cut off by another driver, being tooted at excessively, and being yelled or screamed at by another driver. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Exactly the sort of thing this guy on Banks Peninsula went through. According to his post on Facebook last night, it was 12:10am and this boy racer was tailgating him when he, obviously, at some point overtook this guy, stopped in front of him, got out with a baseball bat and started smashing up the guy’s car. &nbsp;
And he’s now on Facebook asking people who live in the area if they’ve got any security footage that might help identify the vehicle involved. &nbsp;
He’s trying to track-down a Rego number so the police can, maybe, do something about it. Because, according to his post, the police didn’t do anything on the night. &nbsp;
Although the police have told our newsroom this morning that he was “unable to make a statement at the time” and was provided with information to help him report the incident online. The police did confirm that it was reported to them just after midnight on Sunday March 2. &nbsp;
The guy who was attacked has posted a photo online showing the windscreen smashed on the driver’s side. It must have been absolutely terrifying for him. &nbsp;
As Beau Paparoa, who is one of the bosses at AA Insurance, is saying today - things like tailgating not only increases the risk of rear-end collisions. It’s also distressing and dangerous for the people being tailgated. &nbsp;
But it goes next level when you’ve got some muppet not only tailgating you, then passing you, and stopping right in front of you, and getting out of their car and taking to yours with a baseball bat. &nbsp;
I don't think leaving things as they are and only charging people with other offences, and not charging them specifically with road rage, is going to do anything to fix the problem. &nbsp;
From my experience, I would say road rage has been a major problem for a long time now. Whether I can say that I think it’s got worse here in the past 12 months, I don’t know, but a lot of people think it has. &nbsp;
So surely the time has come to up the ante and make road rage a criminal offence. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: Road rage is getting worse - here's what needs to happen

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/aa0e7a9c-32a8-478b-a336-b29d0000cb6c/transcript

I don’t like this idea of dangling bigger carrots in front of people who own land that the government or your local council might want for big infrastructure projects.  

But I'm more concerned about denying people who object access to the Environment Court. Instead of the court, if someone isn’t happy about compulsory sale of their land, they’ll have to complain to the Land Information Minister or their local council – depending on who it is that wants their land.  

And we know who’s going to win that argument every time, don’t we?   

“Dear Minister, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.”  

“Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.”  

Or "Dear council, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.”  

“Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.”  

The changes are being promoted as a cost-saving exercise and a way of getting big infrastructure projects happening sooner. The Government wants these changes so that big projects don’t get bogged down.   

And the way it’s going to do that is by paying people more money to get their land if it’s needed for a big infrastructure project.   

That’s if they agree up front. Because, if a landowner agrees upfront and doesn’t challenge it then there will, of course, be less expense involved.   

The Government wants these changes to get cracking on its roads of national significance and its other fast-track projects.   

It's all to do with the Public Works Act. Which is the legislation that means if your house is sitting somewhere where the Government or your local council wants to build something like a new motorway, they can knock on your door and tell you that they’re buying your house.  

It’s a compulsory acquisition of a property that isn't on the market but is needed for public works.  

At the moment, if people don’t want to sell, they can go to the Environment Court. But the Government wants to do-away with that and I don’t agree with that at all. 

I suspect that if you’re not affected, this sounds like a great idea. But if it’s your land that the Government or your local council wants to get its hands on, you might feel a bit differently.  

I don't even need to be in the position of owning land the Government wants to take off me to know that taking away the right to go to the Environment Court is a bad idea.  

Tell that to Land Information Minister Chris Penk, though. He says: "Public infrastructure projects up and down the country are often held up for years by overly complex, drawn-out processes for purchasing the land needed."  

He goes on to say: “This has meant that projects which would provide massive benefits for communities end up stalled, with the only action happening in courtrooms.”  

Pretty much every time you talk to someone who is anti-the environment court, they start going on about snails on the West Coast.  

You’ll remember this one: about 20 years ago, Solid Energy wanted to build a mine where there were these giant snails and Forest & Bird went to the Environment Court trying to stop it.   

What seems to have got lost over time is that the Environment Court agreed with Forest & Bird but didn’t have authority to intervene. It was then that Forest & Bird went to the High Court. Which led to Solid Energy paying for 6,000 of these snails to be relocated from the Stockton Plateau, so it could access $400 million worth of coal.  

People who think the Environment Court is a handbrake on progress often refer to that case, and see it as good reason for getting the Environment Court out of the picture.  

But I don’t see it that way. The Environment Court is a backstop. A backstop people should not be denied access to if they don't want to sell their land to the government or their local council.   

I don’t like this idea of dangling bigger carrots in front of people who own land that the government or your local council might want for big infrastructure projects. &nbsp;
But I'm more concerned about denying people who object access to the Environment Court. Instead of the court, if someone isn’t happy about compulsory sale of their land, they’ll have to complain to the Land Information Minister or their local council – depending on who it is that wants their land. &nbsp;
And we know who’s going to win that argument every time, don’t we? &nbsp;&nbsp;
“Dear Minister, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.” &nbsp;
“Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.” &nbsp;
Or "Dear council, I want to hold on to my land. Yours, so-and-so.” &nbsp;
“Dear so-and-so. Tough. You’ve got no choice.” &nbsp;
The changes are being promoted as a cost-saving exercise and a way of getting big infrastructure projects happening sooner. The Government wants these changes so that big projects don’t get bogged down. &nbsp;&nbsp;
And the way it’s going to do that is by paying people more money to get their land if it’s needed for a big infrastructure project. &nbsp;&nbsp;
That’s if they agree up front. Because, if a landowner agrees upfront and doesn’t challenge it then there will, of course, be less expense involved. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Government wants these changes to get cracking on its roads of national significance and its other fast-track projects. &nbsp;&nbsp;
It's all to do with the Public Works Act. Which is the legislation that means if your house is sitting somewhere where the Government or your local council wants to build something like a new motorway, they can knock on your door and tell you that they’re buying your house. &nbsp;
It’s a compulsory acquisition of a property that isn't on the market but is needed for public works. &nbsp;
At the moment, if people don’t want to sell, they can go to the Environment Court. But the Government wants to do-away with that and I don’t agree with that at all.&nbsp;
I suspect that if you’re not affected, this sounds like a great idea. But if it’s your land that the Government or your local council wants to get its hands on, you might feel a bit differently. &nbsp;
I don't even need to be in the position of owning land the Government wants to take off me to know that taking away the right to go to the Environment Court is a bad idea. &nbsp;
Tell that to Land Information Minister Chris Penk, though. He says: "Public infrastructure projects up and down the country are often held up for years by overly complex, drawn-out processes for purchasing the land needed." &nbsp;
He goes on to say: “This has meant that projects which would provide massive benefits for communities end up stalled, with the only action happening in courtrooms.” &nbsp;
Pretty much every time you talk to someone who is anti-the environment court, they start going on about snails on the West Coast. &nbsp;
You’ll remember this one: about 20 years ago, Solid Energy wanted to build a mine where there were these giant snails and Forest &amp; Bird went to the Environment Court trying to stop it. &nbsp;&nbsp;
What seems to have got lost over time is that the Environment Court agreed with Forest &amp; Bird but didn’t have authority to intervene. It was then that Forest &amp; Bird went to the High Court. Which led to Solid Energy paying for 6,000 of these snails to be relocated from the Stockton Plateau, so it could access $400 million worth of coal. &nbsp;
People who think the Environment Court is a handbrake on progress often refer to that case, and see it as good reason for getting the Environment Court out of the picture. &nbsp;
But I don’t see it that way. The Environment Court is a backstop. A backstop people should not be denied access to if they don't want to sell their land to the government or their local council. &nbsp;&nbsp;

John MacDonald: Taking away the Environment Court is a bad idea

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0b32c850-7bf3-4415-bd65-b29c00041c5f/transcript

The Proclaimers: Rock duo on their musical journey, new album, and the Christchurch concert

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips