18 NOV 2022 · At the same time the National Party was announcing its plan for boot camps and ankle bracelets for young offenders from the age of 10, a 14-year-old Christchurch boy was in the Youth Court admitting 48 criminal charges after a spate of car thefts and assaults in the city last month. You’ll remember all the stuff that was going on. Some this kid was involved in, some he wasn’t. And the stuff he was in court admitting to yesterday was over-and-above other charges from earlier in the year. So, for all intents and purposes, he is a kid out of control, isn’t he? And he’s the type of kid the National Party has in its sights with its boot camp and ankle bracelet policy. Because he’s 14, this guy would be too young to go to boot camp but he would probably end up wearing an ankle bracelet. We got in touch with the National Party to confirm that but they said they don’t comment on specific cases. But I think it’s safe to assume that this boy would be at home with a bracelet around the ankle if National policy was in place. Now, is it just me, or have the photos of Christopher Luxon that the media have used in the past 24 hours made him look like a bit of an enforcer? No coincidence - but then, I don’t imagine he will be too upset. After all, he and Mark Mitchell want to look tough on this one because they know people have had a gutsful of crime. Not surprisingly, National’s political opponents and others are saying that boot camps and ankle bracelets aren’t the answer, and they’re accusing National of living in the past and not just rehashing old policy, but repeating a policy or an approach they say hasn’t worked previously. But, of course, the people who don’t like what Luxon and Mark Mitchell have come up with don’t seem to be able to come up with an alternative of their own. And they’re pointing to statistics that suggest previous attempts at this sort of thing haven’t stopped young people from offending again - and so National’s opponents are saying ‘case closed’ - it hasn’t worked before, so it won’t work this time around either. But my view is that sometimes you just have to give things a go. And when it comes to criminal offenders, you’re never going to come up with the perfect solution. I know people talk about wraparound services and holistic approaches, but when you’ve got businesses being done over night-after-night, people’s cars being stolen night-after-night, houses being broken into every day and every night, teenagers at the malls getting hidings, people being knocked of their bike by idiots in stolen cars - when you’ve got all that happening, surely it’s worth giving things a go. Because, at the moment, we have a youth justice system that could quite reasonably be called a dismal failure. That’s because the majority of kids that go through the Youth Justice system re-offend. So, obviously, we cannot claim that sticking the really bad ones in these facilities has been a huge success, so why not try something else? Chances are not even boot camps and ankle bracelets will get them some of these kids on the straight and narrow. Because some of them are so damaged and desperate, that they are beyond help. But, surely, even if the idea of a boot camp sounds old-school, or like something out of the 1950s, or not liberal enough for the 21st Century, what’s the harm in giving it a go? And sure, the idea of an ankle bracelet on a 10-year-old does sound extreme - but the kids that would be wearing these things would be extreme cases. Again, why not give it a go? Because even if it stops one kid from re-offending and avoiding a lifetime of crime, it’s worth a shot, isn’t it?

17 NOV 2022 · John MacDonald was joined by Megan Woods and Gerry Brownlee for Politics Friday. They discussed National's policy to deal with youth offenders, and if Labour has any other ideas on how to deal with our rising youth crime. Are there more police on the beat in the CBD now after the Prime Minister's promise last year, and the Government has appointed a mediator to work with the City Council around housing intensification plans.  LISTEN ABOVE

16 NOV 2022 · When it comes to having a view or an opinion it can, sometimes, come down to what you really think versus what you think you should think. I suppose a better way of putting it is ‘head versus heart’ or ‘logic versus gut instinct’. And this is how I’m feeling after reading an opinion piece on nzherald.co.nz written by Cheryl Adamson, who is general manager of the Parnell Business Association, in Auckland. She’s calling out the Government, saying that it needs to start weighing-up the cost of not locking-up repeat criminal offenders against the cost that’s being placed on businesses and the wider community, as a result. As she says in her article, the average cost of housing a prisoner is nothing compared to the financial burden being placed on communities affected by crime. Retail crime, for example, is estimated to cost the country about $1 billion a year. Or, more specifically, costs retailers about a billion dollars a year. Then there is the cost of policing all these people who, Cheryl Adamson thinks, should be either locked up in a prison facility or housed in some sort of mental health facility. She talks in her article about the cost of running the justice system and how repeat offenders just add to that cost. And she talks about the emotional cost of crime on the community. She also talks in her article about kids not feeling safe, and depression and anxiety that people can suffer because of criminal activity going on around them. The final point she makes is that crime in this country is starting to have an impact on our international reputation, which will have a negative flow-on effect for our tourism and education sectors. And do you know what? I don’t think I can argue with anything she says. And this is where I get to the ‘head versus heart’ or ‘logic versus gut instinct’ thing. Because, like you, I’ve heard all the theories about prison needing to be the absolute last resort if we want to steer someone away from a life of crime. And I fully get the argument which says ‘why would you want to send someone - especially a young person - somewhere where they’re just going to be hanging out with criminals night and day?’ And yes, in my head, that all makes perfect sense. So my head tells me that if that argument all makes perfect sense, then I should be shouting down the likes of Cheryl Adamson from the Parnell Business Association. My head tells me that what she’s saying is just knee-jerk and playing into the rhetoric of the likes of David Seymour from ACT and Mark Mitchell from National and the Sensible Sentencing Trust - and all those people who bang on about locking people up and throwing away the key. But, after reading this opinion article, my logic is taking a back seat to my gut instinct. My heart is telling my head to move out of the way. Because even though I get the argument against locking people up, I just think that when you consider the financial burden and the devastating social impact criminal activity is having on our businesses and our communities, then I can’t argue with the views in this article on the Herald website. Of course, I don’t think locking-up more people is going to be the silver bullet. Of course, I don’t think crime is going to disappear if every repeat offender is put away for a while. Of course, someone who goes inside for a while could very well come out worse than when they went in. But, when you consider what the behaviour and activities of these criminals is doing to our society - the financial cost and the social implications - I’m going to go with my gut instinct. That is to say that Cheryl Adamson from the Parnell Business is right when she says that the burden is falling way too heavily on those of us who aren’t criminals. And as she says in her article today: “We need a brave leader who is willing to count the cost and invest in systems and facilities to curb crime".

16 NOV 2022 · Gin Wigmore is part of the star-studded line up at Selwyn Sounds next March, and spoke about how the death of her father impacted her music career and helped her to win an international music competition. They discussed how her path has led her to the United States, and how much she is looking forward to performing in Canterbury next year.  Legendary Kiwi singer-songwriter Gin Wigmore joined John MacDonald. LISTEN ABOVE

15 NOV 2022 · Did you know there is a Vaping Regulatory Authority? Well, there is. And, in my view, it has shown itself to be a nutbar organisation. I’ve come to that view after reading its response to Christchurch woman Jane Gardiner’s concerns about her local dairy building a small kiosk or pantry inside the premises, and running it as a separate vape shop. The Thorrington Dairy on Colombo St is just down the road from Thorrington School, and the owners have decided to cash in on the vaping craze and have built what I would describe as a booth or a pantry inside the shop, and they’re running it as a vape shop. There’s still the one doorway into the place. And signs outside and on the door say “Cashmere Clouds Vape Shop” and “Vape Shop Open”. Jane Gardiner, who lives in the area, sees what’s happening and gets in touch with this Vaping Regulatory Authority, asking how on earth a dairy can get away with selling vapes so close to a primary school; a dairy being a place, of course, where people of all ages go. Not just those over the age of 18. And so she gets a response from the Vaping Regulatory Authority, saying there’s no ban on selling vapes near schools. But it’s what this person from the vaping authority says next that is really nutbar. Now bear in mind that, in this particular shop, the Thorrington Dairy, they’ve put up what I would describe as a small pantry - there’s no door on it - and it’s got the drinks chiller on one side, and chocolate bars and other things on the other side. They’ve stuck a laminated sign saying “Cashmere Cloud Vape Shop” on the outside of this pantry thing. They’ve also stuck one of those LED “Open” signs to it. So picture this, a small pantry between the drinks chiller and chocolate bars and things - and how does this person from the Vaping Regulatory Authority describe it in his letter? “The specialist vape retailer is a separate retail premise (booth) from the dairy with its own point of sale separate to the dairy. Therefore, this approved vaping premises complies with the requirements outlined in the Act.” The Act, by the way, is the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990. Did you hear that? 1990. Thirty-two years ago. Had vapes even been invented in 1990? I don’t think so. So Mr Vaping Authority thinks it’s all fine and nothing to see here. Well Mr Vaping Authority, I think you’re wrong. And I’m with Jane Gardiner on this one. It is ludicrous to suggest that a piddly pantry built inside a dairy is a “separate retail premises” as Mr Vaping Authority describes it. I detest vapes and vaping. I detest it because I think we’ve all been taken for a ride by the vape industry, which told us, didn’t it, that it was all about the wellbeing of people wanting to quit cigarettes. What a load of old nonsense that’s turned out to be, with shiny vape shops all over the place and school principals telling us there is a vaping crisis out there with truckloads of kids and teenagers sucking on the blimmin’ things. Kids and teenagers who have never touched a cigarette. So the old line about vapes supporting healthy lifestyle choices has just turned out to be a real con, hasn’t it? And it is ludicrous that we’ve now reached a point where we’ve got the likes of Mr Vaping Authority saying that nothing more than a pantry inside a dairy constitutes a separate retail outlet. Absolutely ludicrous. Now if we have to have vapes, they should only be sold in dedicated retail outlets, not in dairies, next to the cold drinks and chocolate bars and $1 mixtures. Just like vapes, alcohol can’t be sold to people younger than 18, and do you think dairies would get away with selling grog? Of course not! And vapes should be treated exactly the same way.

15 NOV 2022 · If we can be thankful for anything today, it’s the fact that Waka Kotahi isn’t in charge of aviation. If it was - and a plane fell out of the sky - it wouldn’t do anything about the plane, it would just make it compulsory for plane passengers to put on lifejackets before they take off from the airport. Because that is exactly what it’s doing with its latest announcement that it wants speed limits reduced on our state highways. I’ll refer to the statement it put out yesterday saying it wants lower speed limits because “speed limits were first set before we knew what was safe and appropriate for our roads”. Which is why I’m saying that if they were in charge of things in the sky, they wouldn’t try to make the planes safer - they’d just make us wear lifejackets. Because claiming that current speed limits were set before we knew what was safe, is code for saying the speed limits were set when our roads in this country were in a much better condition and it was safer for us to drive faster. To claim anything otherwise is nonsense. Over the past decade, we have allowed our roads to become so rundown and unsafe that it seems the only answer is to make us all drive slower. For Waka Kotahi to claim that this is just a correction, that when we set the speed limits we didn’t really know what the safest speeds were for our roads in New Zealand, is a load of nonsense. Just like this expectation that making us all drive slower will somehow turn us all into safer drivers. It won’t. Because the speed limit can be whatever you want it to be, but it won’t stop idiots overtaking on corners; it won’t stop people failing to indicate or indicating and just going straight ahead anyway; or doing risky u-turns, especially on the highways. Lowering the speed limits won’t stop idiots texting while they go through intersections. It won’t stop them wearing earpods while driving or riding. And it certainly won’t make people any less likely to drive drunk or stoned. What Waka Kotahi is doing is letting the Government and councils away with under-investing in roading and road maintenance to the point - where it seems - the only option is to drive slower. I think if you really want to get an idea of how bad a road is, in terms of its condition, you just need to tow a trailer around for a bit. I was doing that yesterday. Our daughter bought a bed and so we hooked up a trailer and, as we were heading down the road, that trailer was bouncing all over the place. And when I actually paid attention to the state of the road, I could see why. That was in town. As you will know, the roads on our highways are not much better in many areas. They are in a shocking condition and, if Waka Kotahi was really serious about getting anywhere close to zero road deaths; it wouldn’t be tinkering with speed limits. It would be calling out councils and the Government and telling them that they are the problem, not us, and they need to spend the money that desperately needs to be spent to get our roads up to scratch. The conditions of our roads and the brainless way some people behave when they’re driving are the problem. Reducing speed limits is a cop-out.

14 NOV 2022 · What an amazing game the New Zealand Women's Rugby Team played on Saturday night - beating England 34-31 in the World Cup final. Did you notice, then, that I didn’t call them the Black Ferns? That’s because I don’t think they should be called that anymore. I think they have well-and-truly earned the right to be known as the Women's All Blacks. We’ve had the Men's All Blacks since the early 1900s. Since 2012, we’ve had the Maori All Blacks (originally known as the New Zealand Maori team) and, more recently, we’ve had the All Blacks Sevens. So I think it would make perfect sense for the women's national team to be re-named the Women's All Blacks. I tested my idea at home yesterday and it, pretty much, got the thumbs down. Which surprised me, actually. “Why would the Black Ferns want to be associated with the All Blacks?” is how I would summarise the response. And, yes, give me any game the New Zealand women have played during this World Cup tournament over any All Blacks game in recent memory. This morning’s game against Scotland is a case in point.  How refreshing was it on Saturday night - and throughout the World Cup tournament - to see the women passing the ball around the back row when it seems all the All Blacks can do is kick it into touch time and time and time again. It just highlights, doesn’t it, how boring they’ve become. So I see what my focus group yesterday was getting at, asking why the women would want to be lumped in with the All Blacks. When I was watching that game on Saturday night, I remembered how the All Blacks used to play like the Black Ferns. Taking all sorts of risks. Carlos Spencer, for example, almost throwing the ball away behind him - hoping there was someone there to catch it. And most times, there was. The All Blacks are nothing like that these days. Nevertheless, rugby honchos still bang on about the All Blacks being the number one rugby brand in the world, don’t they? Which might have stacked up a few years back when the All Blacks were genuinely exciting to watch. And when they pretty much smashed any team that took them on. I remember watching them play Scotland at Carisbrook in Dunedin back in the 90s, and the scoreline getting so ridiculously in favour of the All Blacks that I just wanted them to let Scotland get a few points on the board. But they’re not exciting anymore. And they are certainly not dominant. They’re just boring to watch - and, at best, they scrape through games that - not all that long ago - they would’ve won convincingly. And not only do I think that the women's team deserve to be part of the All Blacks brand, I think they could actually be its saviour. Because they’re the ones on top of the rugby world at the moment - unlike their male counterparts. So this isn’t just about recognising the women. It’s about utilising their magic to bring some much-needed shine back to the All Blacks brand. Supposedly, the greatest rugby brand in the world. And, surely, if it’s good enough to have the Sevens team known as the All Blacks and the Maori team known as the All Blacks - then it’s more than good enough to have the women's team known as the All Blacks too. As I’ve said to my kids time and time again, women's sport is the future - particularly when it comes to attracting sponsorship money. And I can see a day coming when the women's team will be the golden ticket for New Zealand Rugby, as corporate sponsors fall over themselves to support women's sport. That is the future. Which is why I’m convinced that, if New Zealand Rugby wants to make the most of that spectacular win on Saturday night, it needs to ditch the Black Ferns brand and make the women's team part of the All Blacks stable. The Men's All Blacks. The Maori All Blacks. The Sevens All Blacks. And the Women's All Blacks. But we can’t stop at a name-change. New Zealand Rugby also needs to start pouring a lot more money into women’s rugby. Investing in the national women’s team AND investing in girls rugby too. Beca...

10 NOV 2022 · I can’t believe the Christchurch City Council. Just weeks after causing a huge outcry with its announcement that it wants to spend $33 million upgrading the streets around the site of the new stadium, Te Kaha, it’s decided behind closed doors to press on. Let me remind you exactly how nuts this whole thing is. It wants to take away dozens of car parks. 49 car parks to be precise. There are currently 72, it wants to get rid of 49 and keep 23. But that’s not all. The council also wants to widen footpaths on some streets in the area to nearly six metres, put in more cycleways and lower the speed limit to as low as 10 kilometres per hour. When the council first announced this daft plan, businesses in the area weren’t happy about it - especially the idea of getting rid of dozens of car parks. Annabel Turley from the Central City Business Association said people still come into town in cars and they need to be catered for. Something else the town planners at the council don’t seem to have thought about is Christchurch’s famous Easterly, because they’ve got this nutbar idea of taking away car parks on Lichfield Street so the footpath can be widened to nearly six metres for outdoor dining. But as Annabel Turley from the Business Association says, that’s the last place you’d want to sit outside and eat, because of the easterly wind which does its thing more often than not. Pretty much everywhere. But the thing I’m probably most confused about, is I thought Mayor Phil Mauger had managed to get this whole thing stopped. That’s what was reported a few weeks back. And I thought that was great and I congratulated Phil at the time. As he’s been saying, this work should only be done when the city can afford it and when it is actually a real priority. And Phil Mauger is bang on when he says that if the Council wants to spend $33 million, it should be going into the stadium itself first. Because let’s not forget the massive funding shortfall that the council is still trying to get its head around. This money shouldn’t be going into beautifying the area when the stadium is still years away. April 2026 is when it’s due to be completed. But, oh no, we have a behind-closed-doors briefing for city councillors on Tuesday and today the council has come out and said ‘it’s all back on folks’. Spending $33 million beautifying the area when, at the moment, the stadium site itself is still pretty much a piece of dirt. It’s all back on! Pouring money into widening footpaths, taking away car parks and slowing traffic down to 10 km/h. It’s all back on! The Council thinks that by getting on with this work sooner rather than later, it won’t have to spend money on expensive traffic management plans when big events are held at the stadium. That’ll be because - if the council gets its way - there’ll be no car parks and traffic will be crawling along at 10 km/h. But let’s not forget how often that’s going to happen. As it stands, there’s probably going to be about one major event per month at the stadium. The rest of the time we’ll be having an even harder time trying to find somewhere to park in town and we’ll be crawling around the place at 10 km/h. But the council, in its wisdom, wants to blow $33 million under the guise that it will save money in the long-run. I don’t buy that for a minute. And, not that long ago, Mayor Phil Mauger wasn’t buying it either and was saying that the Council needed to cut its cloth to suit its budget. But, despite all that, it seems that Council staff have done a brilliant job convincing councillors otherwise and, as a result, the Council has decided not to pull the plug - and the consultation process is up and running again. That will run until the end of the month, then the matter will go to a Hearings Panel in February. As I say, it beggars belief. It beggared belief when they first announced it and it beggars belief even more when you’ve got the mayor against it, you’ve got the Business Association against it and you’ve...

8 NOV 2022 · Last night, we were driving into town. It wasn’t late - there was still plenty of light. And so we were heading down the road and there was a cyclist ahead of us on the left side of the lane we were travelling in. One of the teenagers was driving and thank goodness they had their wits about them because, before we knew it, this cyclist had veered right in front of us as we headed towards an intersection. They were wanting to turn right - but the first we knew of it was when they were suddenly right in front of us, very close to the front of our car. We all shared a few colourful words and, as we went through the intersection, I looked to see if this cyclist had any idea what they had just done. And my assessment would be “no idea at all”. And I realised why. Earpods. Those little wireless earphone things that some people seem to spend most of their day wearing. Which would drive me nuts. But, obviously, it doesn’t bother some people having those things in their ears all the time. And so, as we continued into town, I couldn’t help thinking how different things could have been if that cyclist had veered in front of someone else who might have been a bit distracted or not so quick to react. Just as frightening, was the fact that this cyclist was sailing-on down the road completely oblivious to the danger they’d just been in. And it got me thinking about how the Police are all over people using mobile phones when they’re driving, but nothing seems to be done about people driving vehicles or riding bikes with all sounds around them blocked out by music, or whatever they’re listening to through the earpods and headphones. I’m the sort of driver who needs to be able to hear what’s going on around me - and I find it hard to imagine why other drivers and cyclists aren’t the same. Take emergency vehicles. The fire crews, and police officers and paramedics must get frustrated as hell when they’re screaming off to a job and people can’t hear them approaching because they’ve got their ears blocked. I think it is so dangerous when people can’t hear other vehicles approaching. Especially if they’re on two wheels - as our lot saw last night with this cyclist sailing across the lane right in front of us, completely oblivious to the traffic around them because they had the earpods in and the volume turned up. We’ve checked on what the rules say and, technically, there are three main things you’re not allowed to do when driving. You can’t make or receive phone calls. You can’t send or read text messages and emails. And you’re not allowed to create, send or watch videos But nothing about wearing earpods and headphones. And I think there needs to be. January 1994. That was when cycle helmets became compulsory in New Zealand and remember the fuss there was, initially, because people thought helmets were over-the-top and not needed. These days, generally, it’s only people who steal bikes who don’t wear helmets. You can tell them a mile off. But what I’m getting at is that even though people thought back in 1994 that helmets weren’t necessary, we now all accept that they are. And it’s the same with earpods and headphones. Sure, there’d be a fuss from some people if we made it illegal to use them when riding a bike. The same too if we made it illegal for people to use them when driving a vehicle. But people would get over it and get used to it, and I’m in no doubt it would make things a whole lot safer. And I’m not just saying this because we nearly collected a cyclist last night. I’ve thought it for a long time - riding a bike and driving a car, you need your ears turned on when you’re doing these things. I see too many examples of people prioritising the music or the podcasts over the safety of themselves and other road users. This is something they’ve dealt with in California where it’s been illegal to wear earpods in both ears while cycling or driving since 2016. And, for the past five years, road safety commentator Clive Matthew-Wilson ha...

8 NOV 2022 · I was talking to someone yesterday who was asking what’s going to happen at his place with the Christchurch City Council’s new excess water charges because he doesn’t have his own water meter. He’s got a meter that he shares with other neighbouring properties. And I was able to tell him that he’s in the clear. Because, if you don’t have your own water meter, there’s no way the council can work out how much water you’re using. Which, I think, is a good reason why these excess charges shouldn’t have been introduced until every household in the city has its own water meter. Since yesterday, the Christchurch City Council has released numbers that show exactly how many properties won’t be stung for excess water. You’ll remember that the charging regime came into force on October 1. And the first invoices for excess water use will go out from the Council in late January. Which is why people have been reminded to check for leaks on their properties because, if there’s water disappearing into the ground, they’ll be stung for using too much. There was that recent case in Avonhead, wasn’t there, where a person discovered they had two leaks on their property, got them fixed and reduced their water consumption by 42,000 litres a day. Which is lucky for them because, under the new rules, they’d be charged an extra $55 a day. Now that’s probably an extreme case, but that is a real example of a household here in Christchurch that would’ve had to pay an extra $1600 a month to the council if it hadn’t got the leaks fixed. So the Council says we can use 700 litres per day. Anything over that, there’ll be a charge. Unless, of course, you live at one of the 25,000 properties that don’t have their own water meter - and share one with neighbouring properties. 25,000 properties where people can use as much water as they want, with no consequences. Water the garden. As many baths and showers as you want. Free reign. Water, water everywhere. 25,000 properties out of a total of just over 110,000 residential connections in the Christchurch City Council area. So that’s about 22 per cent of places connected to the city council water supply where they won’t have to think twice about how much water they’re using. One Christchurch resident is speaking out today saying that’s wrong. And they’re saying that the city council shouldn’t be charging anyone until it has the ability to charge everyone for going over their daily limit. And I fully agree. The way it is at the moment, with nearly a quarter of households getting off scot-free, is a bit like a stall at Riccarton Market or somewhere like that having one of those mobile eftpos set-ups and only making people with money cards pay, and letting anyone else with cash get stuff for free. That would never happen. That wouldn’t be fair, would it? So why the Christchurch City Council thinks it’s fair to penalise people just because they happen to have an individual water meter at their property, I’ll never know. Well, I kind of know. Because the council will say it has to start somewhere. And who knows how long it will take to get individual water meters everywhere. Because, as we now know, there are 9600 shared meters in Christchurch. So that’s a lot of replacement meters that need to be sorted. Nevertheless, the fact remains that nearly a quarter of Christchurch households will be able to water the garden as much as they want this summer, let the kids run the sprinkler whenever they want and how often they want, and take as many showers or baths as they want, and they won’t pay a cent for the extra water they use. Meanwhile, the rest of us with individual meters, will either be keeping a check on how much water we’re using or resigning ourselves to the fact that, come late January, we’ll be getting an extra invoice from the city council. Until every property in Christchurch has its own individual water meter, the city council should pull the plug on its excess water charges because the way it’s running th...