Government announces an end to open plan classrooms
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Why has a bill to relax foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?
By Jane Kelsey* of Photo: RNZ Analysis : While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process - this time for foreign investment in New Zealand. But it has had almost no public scrutiny. If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close on 23 July. A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement , the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 "to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely". There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments - especially in forestry. Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator - the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ - 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand's "national interest". If they don't perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved. Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, will require a "national interest" assessment under stage two. These would be assessed against a "ministerial letter" that sets out the government's general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals. Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act's new "purpose" to increase economic opportunity through "timely consent" of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether. If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is "contrary to the national interest", the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors. Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury's 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions. Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should "manage a wide range of risks" and "that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets". Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses. The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported "notable limitations" on the bill's quality assurance process. A fuller review was "infeasible" because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way. The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited. Time constraints meant "users and key stakeholders have not been consulted", according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations. There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement. While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting. Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land. Repeal of the " special forestry test " - which in practice has seen most applications approved , albeit with conditions - means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked. There would no longer be a need to consider investors' track records or apply a "benefit to New Zealand" test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash. The official documents don't explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First's support. It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters , however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore. Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand's free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand's investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations. A " ratchet clause " would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back. However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question. As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk. But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications. *Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau This story was originally published on The Conversation.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Political commentators Gareth and Liam
Gareth Hughes is the Director of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa is a former Green MP and is no longer a member of any political party. Liam Hehir is a Palmerston North lawyer, political commentator and a National Party member. Gareth and Liam discuss the latest politics, including recent CPI data. Photo: 123rf
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
NCEA as we know it should be abolished – Tim O'Connor
What's the problem? The reported strength of NCEA, that is, its flexibility, has found schools 'game' the system, thereby helping students to accumulate credits to earn the qualification. Depth of learning or the retention of knowledge has too readily become secondary to quality teaching and the learning process. As NCEA was being introduced in 2002, our school's critique of the new framework said it would: Undermine the coherence of individual subjects and the importance of integrating understanding Increase teacher workloads due to the volume of internal assessment. Remove a consistent national standard and benchmark Complicate reporting to students and parents Create uncertainty in university entrance qualifications Over 20 years later, the Education Review Office (ERO) and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) have been reporting on the state of NCEA. They highlight major concerns that include 'No core learning is required to achieve subjects within the qualification' and 'The flexibility of the qualification is being used to prioritise credit accumulation over meaningful learning and clear educational or vocational pathways'. Such concerns need to be listened to. What we need and need now is the Minister of Education to take the boldest of steps. NCEA, as we know it, should be abolished. Education Minister Erica Stanford is preparing to make announcements about NCEA. Photo / Alyse Wright What we need is a simplified, rigorous but fair national qualification. Get the design right and we will have a new system that we can be proud of. The core foundational knowledge our children need to learn and the science of learning point the direction we need to take quite clearly. Our national curriculum and qualification system need to reflect this. Introducing a new national qualification will provide every student across the country, no matter where they live, with an equal opportunity to learn content-rich subjects that will provide them with equal opportunities to realise their potential in the world. What's the fix? The first step is the introduction of an internationally benchmarked curriculum. This step is under way with the draft English and mathematics curricula in place for consultation. Our national qualification should then assess our national curriculum in each approved subject area. This will make good sense to parents; however, since the introduction of NCEA, it has not been common sense, as the content has been driven by assessment criteria. This must change. Ideally, the assessment system will include a number of critical elements in order for the qualification to gain credibility and to be respected by professionals nationally and internationally and parents of future generations of students. The content being assessed must be aligned with the national curriculum. This needs to be provided to schools years in advance, so schools and teachers have time to prepare and so that students are not disadvantaged by the changes. Auckland Grammar headmaster Tim O'Connor. Photo / Jason Oxenham The primary mode of assessment should be examinations, as they are an objective and independent form of assessment. Such a system will allow students from across all regions in our country to have faith that they have earned a nationally benchmarked qualification. These new qualifications should include some internal assessment, because not all types of content are best assessed under exam conditions. But all assessments must be conducted under controlled conditions and they should all be marked by the NZQA. Under this new system, teachers would not mark students' work in their schools. Internal assessment marks would not be made available to students until they receive their external results, thereby removing the damaging practice of 'credit counting', which has become such a problem in the current system. This will also encourage student attendance and continued learning throughout the entire academic year. Results should be reported as percentages, which everyone understands, and which enable comparisons, so that anyone can draw meaningful inferences about student performance. Norm-referencing the assessment system would ensure marks and results across years could be broadly compared, so that results are more meaningful to parents, employers and universities. Our national qualifications should be restricted to the final two years of students' secondary schooling – Years 12 (the old Form 6) and Year 13 (Form 7). The qualification, University Entrance, should be in students' final year, and the quality of these assessments should be endorsed by our universities. As a result of NCEA's flexibility, hundreds of students arrive at our universities annually, only to find they have not met entry qualifications and have to complete foundation programmes. The recently introduced NCEA corequisites are causing more problems than they are solving at present. They will not be required if new mathematics and English assessments are robust: they will show how literate and numerate students are, and students' entire qualifications won't depend on three assessments. Introducing a rigorous national qualification that parents, students and teachers can understand and be proud of will provide generations of students with equal opportunities to realise their potential in the world.
