by Newstalk ZB
Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.<br><br>It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
6/16/2021
Email Addresses
1 available
Phone Numbers
0 available
April 14, 2025
<p>Is it ever-so-slightly ironic that, on the same day that the first highway in the South Island had its speed limit increased to 110 kph, we had the Government announce that it wants to make it easier for people to get their driver’s licence? </p> <p>The highway is the main drag that runs between Christchurch and Rolleston. And the proposed driver licence changes are a range of things to make it easier and quicker for someone to get their full licence. </p> <p>There’s some good stuff in there. But I’m not liking this idea of doing away with the second practical test. </p> <p>We’ve got a few weeks to tell the Government what we think of its ideas through a consultation phase that starts today. </p> <p>There are some good things in the plan. I like the idea of new drivers having to behave themselves if they want to graduate to their full licence. The Government wants to halve the number of demerit points new drivers can get before having their licence suspended. At the moment, it’s 100. The Government wants to reduce that down to 50 demerit points. </p> <p>I like the idea of zero alcohol for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government wants to apply that rule to new drivers - whatever their age. </p> <p>So they’re some of the good ideas. </p> <p>But this idea of only having one practical test, instead of two - it doesn’t get my tick. </p> <p>And I know Transport Minister Chris Bishop is saying New Zealand is a bit isolated in that regard. But doing something just because it’s the way everyone else does it has never been a great justification for anything. </p> <p>Just like it’s not a great justification in this case. Because when someone is starting out as a driver, surely that’s the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits. </p> <p>Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better. </p> <p>But under this proposal, a person would have one practical test to get their restricted licence and never be tested again until they’re well past retirement age. </p> <p>Here’s Transport Minister Chris Bishop’s explanation as to why the Government is doing this. He’s saying today: "We've heard for a while now that the system just hasn't been working as efficiently as people would like, and that there are particularly young people out there who are really reluctant to go and get their full licence because it is stressful, it is anxiety-inducing, and it is costly as well.” </p> <p>Stressful and anxiety-inducing? Don’t you think that, when it comes to something as important as a driver’s licence, feeling a bit stressed about it is a good thing? </p> <p>That might just be me. But there’s probably a truckload of things we could do away with on the basis that they cause stress and anxiety for people. </p> <p>And, surely, if someone does one practical driving test - they’re going to be just as stressed about that one. So I don’t see how reducing it from two is going to address that issue. </p> <p>Remember too that, apparently, having a driver’s licence is a privilege - not an entitlement. </p> <p>But, for me, the overarching reason why the two practical tests need to stay, comes down to bad habits. </p> <p>Anyone who drives has bad habits. There is no perfect driver out there. </p> <p>And, whether we’ve been driving for 12 months or 12 years, we all have bad habits. </p> <p>I surprised a few people when I told them that I sat-in on the practical driving tests two of our kids did. You can do that - you sit in the back if you promise not to say anything. </p> <p>And when I did that, I was amazed to find from the examiner some of the things that you can be failed for. </p> <p>And there were some of those things that I do all the time. And that’s why the second practical test is so necessary. </p> <p>Because it’s an opportunity for someone to have any bad habits they might have developed while on their restricted licence pointed out to them. </p> <p>Especially if it’s a bad habit that leads to them failing their practical test. </p> <p>If they fail, they’ll remember. </p> <p>And I think we’d be making a serious mistake if we took away this backstop, if you like, from the driver licence system. </p> <p>Just because it causes a bit of stress and anxiety. And just because it makes it a bit more expensive. </p> <p>Unless, of course, you think a driver’s licence is nothing more than a rite of passage. Unless you think that a licence is an entitlement, not a privilege. </p> <p>Making it easier for someone to get their full licence and doing away with the second practical test doesn’t sound like a privilege to me. </p> <p><strong>LISTEN ABOVE</strong></p><p>See <a href="https://omnystudio.com/listener">omnystudio.com/listener</a> for privacy information.</p>
April 11, 2025
<p>The Treaty Principles Bill is history. Done and dusted. But ACT leader David Seymour, who came up with the bill in the first place, has no regrets. </p> <p>And it’s not done and dusted, as far as he’s concerned. </p> <p>He could bring it back again. But I think what he’s most likely to do is make it a campaign issue in next year’s general election, or try to get a more explicit equality provision in the Bill of Rights Act. </p> <p>All he’s saying is: “I accepted that they've decided on this particular bill at this point in time.” Going on to say: “watch this space”. </p> <p>But whatever happens in the future, the questions at this point are: was the whole thing worth it? And did we learn anything? </p> <p>I tell you what I’ve learned – although, it’s probably something that I knew anyway. But what I’ve taken away from all this is that, wherever we are on the political spectrum, we are not as open to new ideas as much as we might like to think so. </p> <p>The Treaty Principles Bill got those on the left extremely agitated and excited. Just like 3 Waters got those on the right extremely agitated and excited. </p> <p>I was against it because I think any agreement shouldn’t be tinkered with – especially when you get Parliament poking its nose in and tinkering with it. </p> <p>And that’s what the Treaty is. It’s an agreement. </p> <p>The real problem is how the Treaty has been interpreted and used. For example: I’m against the Treaty being used to influence criminal sentences. I’m against the Treaty being used as a reason not to hire the best person for the job. </p> <p>But that’s not the Treaty’s fault. That’s the fault of the institutions and the organisations and the individuals who have enabled that to happen. </p> <p>Because let’s say the Treaty Principles Bill hadn’t been binned yesterday and it went through all the stages and ended up being law, do you really think it would have made things any better or any different? </p> <p>Because the idea behind it —as David Seymour is still saying today— was to ensure everyone is treated equally. But what does “treated equally” mean? </p> <p>I bet we’ve all got different ideas of what that is. For example, if the Treaty principles were changed in the way David Seymour wants them to be, what’s to stop a judge (for example) seeing this so-called “equal treatment” being a licence to give a lighter sentence to someone from a disadvantaged background? So for me, the focus needs to be much more on how the treaty principles are applied, not the principles themselves. </p> <p>As to whether it’s been worth the effort and whether it’s been a waste of time – at this point, I think it has been a huge waste of time, energy, and money. </p> <p>But it won’t have been a waste if we do learn from this and realise that it’s not the Treaty itself but the way that it’s applied that’s the real issue. </p> <p>If we’re big enough —even those of us who opposed David Seymour’s bill— to see that we have learned something out of the process, then it won’t have been a waste. </p> <p>But as I say, this whole thing has shown me again how incapable we are —as a country— of having the so-called “grown up conversations” David Seymour thinks we should be having. </p> <p>And if we can’t get beyond that, then there’s no doubt this whole thing has been a complete waste of time. </p><p>See <a href="https://omnystudio.com/listener">omnystudio.com/listener</a> for privacy information.</p>
April 11, 2025
<p>There's a lack of enthusiasm for a ferry service between Wellington and Lyttelton. </p> <p>According to Local Democracy Reporting, Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon believes the Government should consider reinstating the service, which ran from 1895 to 1976. </p> <p>National Party's Vanessa Weenink told John MacDonald the idea is harking back to the old days. </p> <p>She says she’s unsure what the business case would be, and is unsure if it would work out. </p> <p>Labour's Tracey McLellan says it's a romanticised idea. </p> <p>She told MacDonald she can’t see this one working, and it’s still taking three years to get the Cook Strait Ferries sorted. </p> <p><strong>LISTEN ABOVE </strong></p><p>See <a href="https://omnystudio.com/listener">omnystudio.com/listener</a> for privacy information.</p>
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at [email protected] for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.
