『Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald』のカバーアート

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

著者: Newstalk ZB
無料で聴く

このコンテンツについて

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.2025 Newstalk ZB
政治・政府 政治学
エピソード
  • Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayoral candidate on rates, campaigning
    2025/10/09

    Christchurch's incumbent mayor believes debt is the Council's biggest challenge.

    Phil Mauger says if re-elected he's committed to tackling the Garden's City's growing debt by selling off assets like the Lichfield Street carpark.

    Mauger told John MacDonald the current debt level is $2.5 billion, and he wants it under control.

    He says 25 cents of every rate dollar goes into debt servicing, and he wants that money spent on more things to benefit the city.

    LISTEN ABOVE

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    36 分
  • John MacDonald: Isn't the Drug Foundation stating the obvious?
    2025/10/09

    I support the NZ Drug Foundation’s push to decriminalise drug use and drug possession.

    The key point here is “use” and “possession”. It’s not saying let the dealers and manufacturers away with it, it’s saying we need to take a much more compassionate approach and treat drug users as people in need of help, instead of treating them as criminals.

    I’m picking your response will probably be determined by your exposure to drugs or experience with drugs.

    By that I mean whether your life has been affected in any way.

    I reckon that if someone close to me got hooked on meth, for example, then I’d definitely be wanting the law to take a more compassionate view.

    Because I know that I wouldn’t see them as criminals, I’d see them as someone needing help.

    Whereas if my life was impacted negatively in any way by a meth head —for example, if someone high on meth had attacked me in the street or broken into my home— then I might not be quite so compassionate.

    But if I listen to what the Drug Foundation has to say, then maybe a more compassionate approach would mean less drug addicts attacking people in the street and less drug addicts committing crimes to get money for their drugs.

    Because here’s what it says about that in its report:

    It says we should decriminalise personal possession and use of drugs —including drug utensils— because evidence from overseas shows that a system where people get help —and aren’t treated as criminals— even when they continue using their drug of choice... it says there is evidence that it works.

    In Switzerland for example, where it has what’s called “heroin-assisted treatments”, less people have died from overdoses and there is less drug-related crime.

    Another example the foundation gives in its report is Canada, where there are signs that its “safer supply programmes” are reducing the number of drug overdoses and helping drug users lead more stable lives.

    So why wouldn’t you give it a go?

    But it wants it done in parallel with a whole lot of money being poured into health and harm reduction services.

    Which, no matter what your views on our drug laws are, is a no-brainer.

    You’ll remember how, late last year, it was revealed that cocaine use in New Zealand is at an all-time high and methamphetamine consumption has doubled. And with people using more cocaine and meth, they’re at much greater risk of things like psychosis and heart issues.

    So, either way, there’s going to be some sort of financial burden on the health system at some point, isn’t there?

    So why not turn things on their head?

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    5 分
  • John MacDonald: Keeping victims of crime in the dark isn't good enough
    2025/10/08

    Is it good enough that the victim of a nasty assault in Christchurch has had to hound the police for four weeks to find out what’s going on with their investigation?

    This is someone who lost several teeth in the assault which happened in broad daylight inside The Palms shopping mall.

    Is it good enough?

    He and his family don’t think so, saying today that it’s left them feeling like they’re the bad guys, when all they’ve wanted is to know what’s going on.

    I’ll come back to his story. And another one.

    But is it good enough? I don’t think it is.

    But even though Canterbury Police have ditched their restructuring plans which would have had less cops based in areas like Amberley and Culverden and more cops based in growth areas like Rangiora and Rolleston, I don’t see things changing anytime soon.

    The police obviously didn’t bank on Federated Farmers getting fired up and organising public meetings, which led to 1,000 submissions against the proposals, which have now been ditched.

    But while Federated Farmers and people in places like Amberley and Culverden will be happy, it doesn’t solve the problem for everyone else in Canterbury.

    The problem being: there’s not enough cops.

    Which brings me back to the guy who was punched in the chops in broad daylight by a woman at The Palms four weeks ago.

    Matt Sherwood is his name. He’s a baker —he runs his own business— and he was at the mall selling his products when a woman he didn’t know put her groceries down on his table.

    He said “g’day” to her and she muttered something. But then went and opened a can of drink that started to fizz everywhere. All over Matt’s stall. And, within seconds, she was yelling “f*** you man” and she hit him in the face.

    He lost six teeth and has been to the dentist multiple times, which has cost him thousands of dollars.

    But the bit that has left him really frustrated is the way he’s had to hound the police for information.

    He’s saying today: “Every single sort of point we get to, it’s just like it’s forced. I feel like I’ve done something wrong all the time. I would have liked some sort of timeline, and just to keep up with stuff and (have them) contact me and tell me the time frame.”

    The exact same story for someone else we’ve heard about. This person was assaulted in a public place, called the police the next day, and had to chase them for two weeks to get an initial phone conversation.

    After that, they had no further contact and after following up repeatedly, was eventually told by a police officer that they were “needy and desperate”.

    They felt that, as the victim, the onus was on them to chase the police, instead of the police coming to them. Which has left them feeling that their experience was minimised and that they weren’t a priority.

    This is nowhere near good enough, in my book.

    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

    続きを読む 一部表示
    5 分
まだレビューはありません