Prosecuting parents of truant kids pointless
Pushing to prosecute parents of chronically truant kids is a pointless exercise according to one school principal. Associate Education Minister David Seymour is leading the government charge to get more kids back in class. He's announced the Education Ministry is proactively contacting schools and attendance officers to make sure parents of chronically absent students are referred to them for possible prosecution. Rangiora High School Principal Bruce Kearney spoke to Lisa Owen.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
26 minutes 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
an hour 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
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Julia DeLuney's defence says no evidence of breakdown in relationship with mother
Julia Deluney at High Court. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Julia DeLuney's defence says there's no evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between her and her mother, Helen Gregory, that would explain a murder. DeLuney is on trial at the High Court in Wellington charged with murdering the 79-year-old at her Khandallah home in January 2024, which she denies. The Crown finished its closing argument on Friday , arguing DeLuney had been stealing cash from her mother and then violently attacked her, leaving her dead or dying, perhaps following a confrontation about money. But defence lawyer Quentin Duff said there was no evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between DeLuney and her mother. There was only evidence, he said, of "an ordinary and loving relationship, albeit with its own problems". He asked the jury not to accept that they were being asked to decide that DeLuney had killed her mother, without knowing why. He argued the police investigation had failed to consider other suspects - by 7 February, it had narrowed down to DeLuney only. Julia DeLuney and Helen Gregory, pictured in Gregory's walk-in wardrobe. Photo: SUPPLIED "Of course she should have been a suspect," Duff said. "In none of our cross examination have we criticised that." But he said there should have been two others - the first, a mysterious person who knocked on the door of a house further up the street that same night, but left before the homeowner answered. The second was a contractor who had previously worked for Gregory, and who she had suspected had taken money from her in the past. The Crown argued on Friday it was DeLuney who took that money, and she who put the idea of the handyman being the culprit in her mother's head. Duff drew the jury's attention to the "myth" of the attic fall, which had "perpetuated itself right throughout the way of this investigation, through to this trial". He said DeLuney had told them about the fall, but had never claimed that had been the cause of death - rather, the police had latched onto that, and worked to disprove it. "They were hellbent, you might think, on disproving and exposing Ms DeLuney for being a liar." He also accused the police of inserting themselves into the story, to make judgement calls on what DeLuney had done. But he said DeLuney's decisions made sense when you considered what we had heard about the people involved. The court heard that, on a past occasion, Gregory had fallen out of her bed - therefore, it made sense for DeLuney to put her on the floor. It heard her Gregory hated hospitals, and was scared of being put in a home. On top of that, DeLuney was scared of being blamed for letting her mother climb into the attic in the first place - so it made sense that she didn't call an ambulance. And it made sense, Duff said, that DeLuney would leave her mother to fetch her husband, Antonio - if the injury was minor, and all she needed was monitoring overnight, it would be "a load shared" to fetch someone who happened to know CPR, Duff said. "That's common sense." The defence's closing argument continues this afternoon. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
