Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to National leader Christopher Luxon. They discussed the safety of politicians off the back of Grant Robertson's concerns whilst visiting Northland recently. They also talked about the report into Sam Uffindell and if it should be released publicly, and how did Luxon react to the Christchurch City Council pushback on housing intensification?

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Many years ago, I went to the loo one day in the building where I worked, walked into the mens toilet and Helen Clark was there.

Turned out the men's loo was closer to the studio where she was doing an interview and so they told her just to use that. And I remember afterwards thinking ‘only in New Zealand' would you walk into the men's loo and find the female Prime Minister there washing her hands.

And only in New Zealand would you have any chance of getting that close to the leader of a country without being swamped by the heavies from security.

But, according to Grant Roberston anyway, that may all be about to change.

Because he’s been saying that the abuse he’s been getting when he’s out in public has got so bad, that he’s had to have the same level of security around him as what the Prime Minister has.

And he has said that Labour is considering doing away with the public walkabouts during next year’s election campaign because he thinks politicians are becoming the targets of such abuse, that it may not be safe for them to do the shake-and-howdy walkabouts.

You know, the stuff they all do - especially at election time - where they walk around malls and talk to people and pretend they’re interested in what they’re doing.

Judith Collins did a famous walkabout last election on Ponsonby Road in Auckland. Actually, it was more infamous than famous because we found out afterwards that she’d planted a rent-a-crowd there full of National supporters.

But Grant Robertson says, next year, don’t assume Labour will be doing it because it’s just getting too dangerous out there.

But does Grant just need to harden up here and accept that - generally - politicians are fair-game and should expect to get a bit of a hard time now and then?

I see the Greens are chiming-in on this too. With co-leader Marama Davidson saying that the abuse towards politicians is of a "different, more violent nature” these days.

She’s talking, of course, after the experience of the occupation at Parliament earlier this year where there was no shortage of fruit-loops and troublemakers.

But hearing David Seymour and Christopher Luxon speak about this earlier today, it seems to me that it’s parties from the left that feel the most threatened.

Labour and the Greens are talking about it today - and remember back in May, the Maori Party said it wouldn’t be taking part in the Tauranga by-election because of safety issues.

The party said then that a string of racist incidents in the city, and death threats, made them decide that it wasn’t worth taking the risk.

And we’ve seen, haven’t we, that there can be deadly consequences for politicians. Almost a year ago in Britain, Conservative MP Sir David Amess was stabbed to death when he was meeting constituents.

Also in the UK, Labour MP Jo Cox died after being shot and stabbed in November 2016.

And you could say ‘oh, that’d never happen here in New Zealand’. But we probably used to think a terrorist attack on a mosque would never happen in New Zealand too.

Nevertheless, I think Labour is less concerned about safety and more concerned about what it would look like having rabid protesters turning up wherever their MPs and candidates go during the election campaign next year.

In political circles, they call that stuff “optics”. Whether something is a good look or a bad look. And footage night-after-night on the TV news and day-in day-out on the internet of Labour people getting abused is the last thing Labour would want when it’s trying to convince us to give it another term in government. As far as the optics go, that would be a very bad look.

Yes, there do seem to be more people out there who think very little of politicians and who are quite happy to ignore the protocols and give them an earful at every opportunity. And yes, things are generally a lot more unhinged than they used to be.

But I think Labour, and the Greens and the Maori Party need to accept that this is the reality these days - and, in my view anyway, pulling the plug on things like walkabouts has nothing to do with keeping people safe and everything to do with shamelessly trying to avoid situations which might not be such a good look during an election campaign.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to National leader Christopher Luxon. They discussed the safety of politicians off the back of Grant Robertson's concerns whilst visiting Northland recently. They also talked about the report into Sam Uffindell and if it should be released publicly, and how did Luxon react to the Christchurch City Council pushback on housing intensification?
LISTEN ABOVE

Can someone send some morning tea to the New Zealand Initiative please? Because we finally have an outfit calling out the disaster that is “the modern learning environment”.

If you’ve had a child or grandchild go through school here in New Zealand anytime over the past 10-or-so years, you’ll know all about the modern learning environment.

Massive, barn-like classrooms with bean bags and tents where the kids - or “the learners” - get involved in “self-directed learning”.

It’s where the teachers don’t teach anymore, because they are learning as the kids learn, apparently. And where you once might have had one teacher for about 30 kids inside a compact classroom - you now get a couple of teachers trying to keep a handle on about 80 kids inside these massive spaces.

If I’m sounding a bit dismissive of the whole thing, it’s because I am - and I have been for a long time. Which is why I’m delighted that the New Zealand Initiative - which is one of these think tanks with some pretty impressive people on its books - has called out the Ministry of Education big time.

People like Dr Eric Crampton and Des Gorman - they’re a couple of names you see in the media all the time who are part of the New Zealand Initiative.

And I am delighted that it has come out today and said that these modern learning environments that schools up and down the country have been implementing are based on nothing else but ideology.

Which is nothing new to me because I spent about six years on a school board when the kids were younger - it was at their primary school - and it seemed back then that every weekend the caretaker was doing overtime knocking out walls between the classrooms.

The modern learning environment was the way of the future and we had to get on board, is what the principal kept telling us at board meetings. And I didn’t swallow it for a minute.

I had no time back then for massive classrooms with 60-to-80 kids, all doing their “self-directed learning”. And I said so too.

But I was a bit of a lone voice and so the walls kept getting knocked out. In fact, I was surprised the place stayed upright, there were so many walls being given the heave-ho.

Then came the earthquakes in Christchurch and the Ministry of Education rolled into town and announced it would rebuild everything. And what did it want to build? It wanted to build classrooms that looked like an old-school tavern.

Cavernous things to give the kids - sorry, the learners - a sense of space, freedom, wonder and exploration.

And every time it came up at board of trustee meetings, I just kept thinking to myself that it was nothing more than an experiment driven by ideology and nothing else.

Which is why I am so delighted today that the New Zealand Initiative has come out and said exactly the same thing.

And it’s saying it because the Ministry of Education has not been able to provide the big brains at the New Zealand Initiative with any data or information to show whether this ideologically-driven experiment has actually worked.

Dr Michael Johnston from the Initiative went to the Ministry wanting basic information such as the number of modern learning environments in schools in New Zealand, the cost of setting them up and how effective they’ve been.

And do you know what? The Ministry couldn’t provide it because it doesn’t have it.

The Ministry of Education spent billions of dollars on modern learning environments but did no research on their effectiveness before spending all that money and forcing schools to get with the programme. And it’s done no evaluation since to find out whether they’re working or not.

Which actually doesn’t even make it an experiment, does it? Because if you do an experiment, you gather a whole lot of data and information and find out if there’s any change.

So it’s just ideology gone mad.

Which is shameful. And I’m not just saying that because I’ve thought all along that this modern learning environment concept is a disaster. I’m also saying it because how the Ministry thinks it’s ok to spend billions of dollars without no research beforehand and no evaluation afterwards, I’ll never know.

And instead of spending billions on modern learning environments - which the Ministry of Education has no idea are working or not - it would’ve been much wiser to spend that money on actual teachers because they are what make the difference for our kids.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Phil Mauger, mayoral candidate is interviewed here today!

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am really struggling with these two Mongrel Mob guys getting reduced prison sentences because they had a hard time growing up.

That’s probably putting it mildly - one report I’ve seen describes one of them having an “horrific” upbringing. But you get what I mean.

They were both high-up in a commercial methamphetamine operation which manufactured and supplied the drug in the Waikato area.

Their names are James Smith - a member of the Mongrel Mob’s World chapter - and Richard Heller - a member of the gang’s Rogue chapter.

They were caught as part of a police operation and they have been sent to prison. Which is where they should be, given the operation they were running was in the second-highest category of meth offending based on the quantity of drugs the police proved they were responsible for.

The bit I’m struggling with is the fact that these guys had their sentences reduced because of issues from their childhood.

They both pleaded guilty to supplying a Class A drug (methamphetamine), possession for supply, and participating in an organised criminal group. Smith also admitted an additional charge of manufacturing methamphetamine.

And when they appeared for sentencing, the starting point for Smith’s sentence was 12 years, four months in prison. And for Heller, the starting point was 10 years, six months.

The difference in the length of potential sentences was due to Smith being culpable for supplying more of the drug than Heller - and also because Smith had admitted manufacturing the drug as well.

But what happened when the sentencing judge decided how long to actually send them away for, is that he thought he would factor-in their childhoods and how that had led them to a life of crime.

So to start with, the judge gave both offenders a 25 percent discount on their sentences for pleading guilty early in the piece. But I just can’t believe what happened next.

After the 25 percent discount for the early pleas, the judge took a further 25 percent off Smith’s sentence because of his rough childhood, and another 5 percent off to “assist his rehabilitation”. Which meant his final sentence went from 12 years, four months to five years, six months in prison. Which, by my maths, comes to about a 45 percent discount.

Reports prepared for the court said Smith had a significant history of abuse growing up in state care and foster homes, and that he first used methamphetamine when he was 15.

And, after reading those reports, the judge said to him: "I agree that the catalogue of issues addressed in the various reports significantly reduces the level of your culpability with regard to the offending."

Which was essentially the judge saying ‘because of your tough time in the past, you’re not as much to blame for what you did'.

As for Richard Heller - remember the starting point for his sentence was 10 years, six months. But just like he did with Smith, the judge took 25 percent off for the early guilty plea - and then he went on to take off another 15 percent for his dysfunctional childhood, and another 15 per cent for rehabilitation.

Which took his sentence from 10 years, six months to four years, nine months. Just like his mate, that’s a discount of about 45 percent on the maximum sentence. And just like his mate, he got a reduced sentence because of abuse in state care, and drug and alcohol addiction, which led to poor mental health.

The judge decided that they weren’t to blame as much as someone who may have had a better upbringing than these guys. Which, on paper or if you’re perhaps in the privileged position of methamphetamine not having ruined your life or the life of someone close to you, sounds like such an understanding approach.

I’m not going to say that what happened to these guys early in life didn’t have an impact on how they led their adult lives. But is it an excuse or justification for a reduced sentence?

The liberal side of me would probably say 'yes'. But I can’t. So I won’t.

Because I actually think what that sentencing judge did was to completely forget about the misery these two guys created in other people’s lives. When you make and sell methamphetamine, you don’t give a damn about the people who end up using the stuff.

These guys didn’t give a damn. So why should we give a damn?

Yes, I know they’re in prison and it’s not as if they’re on home detention.But a 25 percent discount on a prison sentence because someone had a tough childhood? All I can think about is the parents I heard from recently who told me about the hell they went through when their kids got hooked on meth.

I remember one chap telling me about his son who took his life last year during lockdown because he ended up owing the gangs a truckload of money and couldn’t see a way out.

And this judge thinks reducing sentences for the creeps who make and sell this stuff because they had tough childhoods, is the kind thing to do. Give me a break. It is a shameful thing to do and totally disregards the poor sods hooked on this drug and who are taken advantage of day-in day-out by the likes of the Mongrel Mob.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I wonder how the family and friends of Rachael Harris are feeling today.

Rachael was the 62-year-old woman who died in August last year in a crash that happened in Christchurch after a man reeking of alcohol drove through a red light at more than 120 km/h and smashed into her car, pushing it 33 metres along the road.

Rachael died instantly. It’s been reported that it’s thought she was on her way home after helping a friend with their animals.

The car that smashed into Rachael’s car was doing 124 km/h when it ran the red light and 117 km/h when the crash happened. Rachael was travelling at 27 km/h per hour.

But it gets worse.

The guy who drove through the red light - Sunny Nepia - and his passenger, got out of their car, the passenger checked on Rachael and saw that she’d passed away, and then these two spineless creeps took off before emergency services arrived.

They stuck around long enough for members of the public who were on the scene to smell the alcohol on Nepia’s breath, hear him slurring his words and wonder whether they might have been on drugs too because of the way they were behaving.

But I gather it was a pretty brief encounter because when Nepia and his mate asked these people for a ride to get out of there, they said no, and so the two of them ran off.

But it gets worse.

When the police eventually caught up with Nepia about a day after the crash, he told them he’d had three pre-mixed bourbon drinks before the crash and had been unsure whether the traffic lights at the intersection were red, amber or green when he approached it at more than 120 km/h per hour.

And it wasn’t the first time Nepia had driven drunk. Before that terrible crash last August, he’d been done for drink-driving five times and he was done a sixth time for this one. And just last week, he breached his bail conditions by drinking alcohol.

And so yesterday, he appeared in court to be sentenced after pleading guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing death. He had also faced a charge of failing to stop because he did a runner after the crash - but that was dropped because his passenger had gone and checked on Rachael and had seen that she had passed away before they took off.

So yesterday was his sentencing day. And what do you think he got?

Bear in mind this guy admitted dangerous driving causing death, he took off before emergency services got there, it was the sixth time he was done for drink driving and he breached his bail conditions just last week by drinking alcohol.

Was he sent to prison? No he wasn’t. Instead, he got 12 months home detention with community work.

Reading the court report, it appears the sentencing judge gave Nepia a lot of credit for going through a restorative justice meeting with Rachael Harris’ family.

His lawyer told the court it was one of the hardest things his client has ever had to do. And the sentencing judge said it would have taken a lot of courage to face Rachael’s family.

The court also heard that Nepia had been brought up with alcohol all around him. As his godmother said yesterday, the way his family did things was that if there was a problem they’d drink, and even if there wasn’t a problem, they’d drink.

And it was acknowledged that Nepia himself has a “chronic” alcohol problem.

But sometimes you’ve just gotta say “boo-hoo”, don’t you? I can’t share the Court’s sympathy for this guy. And, in my mind, the sentence he got yesterday was nothing short of outrageous.

12 months home detention after driving drunk for the sixth time, killing an innocent woman after running a red light at more than 120 km/h, doing a runner before emergency services arrived, and then breaching his bail last week by drinking alcohol.

It is nothing short of outrageous and - in my view - there is no way justice has been done.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald spoke to Labour's Poto Williams and National's Gerry Brownlee.

They covered the big news of the week, including the Reshaping Streets movement, the recent Taxpayers Union poll which gives National and ACT positive news, and yesterday's GDP number.

John also pressed them both on their reaction to the Christchurch City Council voting no to the housing intensification bill, and why has $16 million been spent on consultants for the proposed Three Waters Reform.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It seems doesn’t it that the Government, at the moment, is hellbent on forcing change on us in so many parts of our lives.

Yesterday, it was the housing intensification changes - which the Christchurch City Council snubbed its nose at.

There’s another one, though, that I suspect the Christchurch council - in fact, all councils around the country - might be quite excited about.

The Government’s “Reshaping Streets” policy will make changes to land transport rules and the Local Government Act, to allow councils to change street lay-outs and street uses for up to two years without consulting anyone first.

The Government’s saying the two years would be a “pilot” or a “trial” and then the councils could consult us on what we thought of it after that.

It would completely turn things on their head and any council could decide it wants to make a change to the lay-out of a road or change the way a road is used, give us just two weeks’ notice, keep the changes in place for two years, and then ask us what we think of it.

As one commentator has been saying, it would mean those opposed to something would run out of steam after two years and the rest of us would probably just accept it and not bother with the drawn-out consultation process.

Now one of the things these proposed changes would do, is allow councils to ban parents from driving to the school gate to pick-up and drop-off their kids.

And they’d do this by closing streets to private vehicles during drop-off and pick-up times.

Can you imagine that? And if parents started driving down side streets to get to the school, councils could extend the ban to those side streets as well. And that’s just one example of how this policy would work.

But, unlike the housing intensification business, it’s quite likely that our local councils will love this one because councils - rightly or wrongly - are perceived as being anti-car, because they seem to love chewing up roads to build cycleways and they love to tell us that we should be taking the bus and riding a bike.

The name of this government policy - Reshaping Streets - says it all, doesn’t it? And councils love re-shaping streets. So maybe they won’t be so quick to push back on it.

Another thing this proposed policy would do is it would let councils remove car parks for two years - again with just two weeks’ notice - and it’d be two years before they had to ask us what we thought of it.

Just yesterday afternoon I went into town to do something but I just about gave up when it became so difficult finding somewhere to park - all because the council thinks we shouldn’t be driving into town, and we should be riding our bikes or taking the bus. So there are nowhere near as many parking spaces in town as there used to be.

And that’s why I think councils everywhere are going to love this “Reshaping Streets” proposal the Government is pushing.

Because if it goes through, they'll be able to take away even more car parks (with just two weeks' notice) and make us wait two years before we get to have a say on it.

They’ll be able to close the roads around schools during drop-off and pick-up time, with just two weeks' notice, and make us wait two years before asking what we think of it.

In my view, calling these things “pilots” is nothing short of shifty. And, as far as I’m concerned, it will be seen by most people as ideology-gone-mad.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings, John MacDonald discussed the Reshaping Streets plan currently being consulted on by Waka Kotahi.

The Government wants to give local councils the power to change road lay-outs and road uses for up to two years, before consulting anyone. It wants to allow councils to stop parents from driving to the school gate to pick-up and drop-off their kids by closing streets to private vehicles during drop-off and pick-up times.

Councils could also reduce the number of car parks for two years before consulting anyone. And any changes could happen with just two weeks' notice.

Annabel Turley of the Christchurch Central City Business Association spoke on the show about her huge concerns and the implications this could have on businesses and residents in Canterbury. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.