I think the Government is making a terrible mistake ditching the second practical test for new drivers.

I like some of the changes it’s making to the driver licensing system. But getting rid of the second practical isn’t one of them. I’ll tell you why. But, first, what bits do I like? And what is missing from the changes? 

For starters, I like the idea of a zero-alcohol limit for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government is going to apply that to all new drivers - whatever their age.

I would have gone further and introduced a zero-alcohol rule for all drivers. But this is a good start.

I also like the increased learner period for new drivers under-25 - which makes total sense because the numbers tell us, don’t they, that any driver under the age of 25 is at greater risk of injury or death.

So the more time they spend as a learner driver - which stops them running around town with passengers - that has to be a good thing.

As to what’s missing - I’ve always thought it’s nuts that we only train and test new drivers within the town or city limits on 50 kph roads and do nothing to prepare them for driving on the open road.

But my real concern is the second practical test getting the flick.

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.

When someone is starting out as a new driver, surely that’s the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits. Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better.

But with new drivers only having a practical test to get their restricted licence - and never being tested again until they’re well past retirement age - that is not going to make our roads safer.

The second practical test is the perfect opportunity for any bad driving habits someone has developed while they’ve been on their learner and restricted licences to be picked up and ironed out.

Because, if they fail, they remember. 

LISTEN ABOVE

I think the Government is making a terrible mistake ditching the second practical test for new drivers.
I like some of the changes it’s making to the driver licensing system. But getting rid of the second practical isn’t one of them. I’ll tell you why. But, first, what bits do I like? And what is missing from the changes?&nbsp;
For starters, I like the idea of a zero-alcohol limit for all new drivers. At the moment, this only applies to new drivers under 20. The Government is going to apply that to all new drivers - whatever their age.
I would have gone further and introduced a zero-alcohol rule for all drivers. But this is a good start.
I also like the increased learner period for new drivers under-25 - which makes total sense because the numbers tell us, don’t they, that any driver under the age of 25 is at greater risk of injury or death.
So the more time they spend as a learner driver - which stops them running around town with passengers - that has to be a good thing.
As to what’s missing - I’ve always thought it’s nuts that we only train and test new drivers within the town or city limits on 50 kph roads and do nothing to prepare them for driving on the open road.
But my real concern is the second practical test getting the flick.
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.
When someone is starting out as a new driver, surely that’s the time when you want every opportunity to iron out any bad habits. Because, like any bad habit, the sooner you nip it in the bud - the better.
But with new drivers only having a practical test to get their restricted licence - and never being tested again until they’re well past retirement age - that is not going to make our roads safer.
The second practical test is the perfect opportunity for any bad driving habits someone has developed while they’ve been on their learner and restricted licences to be picked up and ironed out.
Because, if they fail, they remember.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

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.

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.

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.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

John MacDonald: There's no way less testing will mean safer driving

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/4d51c21e-7bf8-4858-afe4-b3e700004ed6/transcript

How on earth did we get to the point where we’ve got schools saying today that kids are starting school without some of the most basic skills?

And when they say basic, they mean basic. According to the Auckland Primary Principals’ Association, there are five-year-old kids starting school who can’t talk, who can’t feed themselves and who haven’t been toilet trained.

I think I’ve got a partial solution to this problem. Which would mean putting more pressure on parents to make sure their kids are school-ready. 

I’ll get to that. But first, here’s the scale of the problem. Nearly 90 per cent of Auckland primary schools say new entrant students are needing more help than ever before to reach a level where they’re ready to learn.

Massey Primary School assistant principal, Anna Watkin, is one of the educators speaking out today.

She says her school is seeing increasing numbers of children entering the classroom who can’t hold a pencil or recognise their name.

She says: “They struggle with empathy, focus, and even basic things like toileting. It takes at least three years to catch them up to expected curriculum standards.”

And this is not just an Auckland problem. I was talking to someone who said there are new entrants turning-up at the Christchurch school their kids are at who can’t eat their lunch on their own. 

What’s more, parents at their child’s school have been warned that, if their Year One child wets or soils their pants, the teachers won’t be cleaning it up. They’ll call the parents and get them to come and sort it out.
 
But that’s putting the onus on the parents' way too late.

The pressure needs to go on parents' way before Day One at school - and here’s how you’d do it.

I think every child about to start school should be tested for the basic skills you would expect them to have at age 5.

So, they’d be tested to check they can do things like feed themselves and go to the toilet.

You might think schools don’t have time to do all that. But my response is that schools also don’t have the time to deal with these kids once they’re in the classroom, either.

At least by testing them before they start, the school and teachers would have a warning that they’re going to be dealing with kids who don’t know the basics.

If we were going to be really hard on it, we’d tell parents or caregivers to keep their kids at home until they can do these basic things. So, they wouldn’t be allowed to start school until they could prove they were toilet-trained and all of that.

I think that would be going too far. But at least if a child was tested for these basics before starting, schools would have a better idea or a warning of what they’re going to be dealing with.

LISTEN ABOVE

How on earth did we get to the point where we’ve got schools saying today that kids are starting school without some of the most basic skills?
And when they say basic, they mean basic. According to the Auckland Primary Principals’ Association, there are five-year-old kids starting school who can’t talk, who can’t feed themselves and who haven’t been toilet trained.
I think I’ve got a partial solution to this problem. Which would mean putting more pressure on parents to make sure their kids are school-ready.&nbsp;
I’ll get to that. But first, here’s the scale of the problem. Nearly 90 per cent of Auckland primary schools say new entrant students are needing more help than ever before to reach a level where they’re ready to learn.
Massey Primary School assistant principal, Anna Watkin, is one of the educators speaking out today.
She says her school is seeing increasing numbers of children entering the classroom who can’t hold a pencil or recognise their name.
She says: “They struggle with empathy, focus, and even basic things like toileting. It takes at least three years to catch them up to expected curriculum standards.”
And this is not just an Auckland problem. I was talking to someone who said there are new entrants turning-up at the Christchurch school their kids are at who can’t eat their lunch on their own.&nbsp;
What’s more, parents at their child’s school have been warned that, if their Year One child wets or soils their pants, the teachers won’t be cleaning it up. They’ll call the parents and get them to come and sort it out. &nbsp; But that’s putting the onus on the parents' way too late.
The pressure needs to go on parents' way before Day One at school - and here’s how you’d do it.
I think every child about to start school should be tested for the basic skills you would expect them to have at age 5.
So, they’d be tested to check they can do things like feed themselves and go to the toilet.
You might think schools don’t have time to do all that. But my response is that schools also don’t have the time to deal with these kids once they’re in the classroom, either.
At least by testing them before they start, the school and teachers would have a warning that they’re going to be dealing with kids who don’t know the basics.
If we were going to be really hard on it, we’d tell parents or caregivers to keep their kids at home until they can do these basic things. So, they wouldn’t be allowed to start school until they could prove they were toilet-trained and all of that.
I think that would be going too far. But at least if a child was tested for these basics before starting, schools would have a better idea or a warning of what they’re going to be dealing with.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: When did toilet-trained 5-year-olds become too much to expect?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/ff481471-7eb5-4fe6-a5ab-b3e50181704f/transcript

I am liking the sound of a law change being introduced in New South Wales, where they are no longer going to allow good character references to be factored into court sentences.

You know the drill. Someone is found guilty of a crime, they get their mates to write to the judge saying what a great person they are and how they’ve done all these good things.

The judge reads all these glowing references and, when it comes to handing down a sentence, gives them some sort of discount because of their “good character”.

The New South Wales government has decided it’s not having any more of that. And I think we should do the same thing here. Because someone’s so-called good character means zilch to their victim or their victims, doesn’t it?

If we’re going to make noises about the criminal justice system needing to be more victim-focused, then this would be a pretty good start. Because how galling must it be for the victim of a crime to turn up at the sentencing and hear about all these wonderful things that have been said about the person who offended against them?

What’s more, how galling must it be to not only hear how wonderful this person apparently is, but to also then witness the judge discounting their sentence because of these glowing reports.

Even if someone has done amazing things in the past, that doesn’t make their offending any less serious. It doesn’t diminish the impact of their offending on their victim or their victims, does it? 

Not that good character references are going to disappear altogether in New South Wales. They’re still going to be allowed during the trial process. But they’re not going to be coming across the desk of judges when they’re about to dish out sentences.

The change follows a report by the New South Wales Sentencing Council which said the references are based on a vague and uncertain concept.

It said just because someone has a good character reference, that doesn’t tell the sentencing judge anything about the likelihood of someone re-offending or the likelihood of them being rehabilitated.

Which makes total sense.

It also says that good character discounts are traumatising for victims.

I couldn’t agree more.

LISTEN ABOVE

I am liking the sound of a law change being introduced in New South Wales, where they are no longer going to allow good character references to be factored into court sentences.
You know the drill. Someone is found guilty of a crime, they get their mates to write to the judge saying what a great person they are and how they’ve done all these good things.
The judge reads all these glowing references and, when it comes to handing down a sentence, gives them some sort of discount because of their “good character”.
The New South Wales government has decided it’s not having any more of that. And I think we should do the same thing here. Because someone’s so-called good character means zilch to their victim or their victims, doesn’t it?
If we’re going to make noises about the criminal justice system needing to be more victim-focused, then this would be a pretty good start. Because how galling must it be for the victim of a crime to turn up at the sentencing and hear about all these wonderful things that have been said about the person who offended against them?
What’s more, how galling must it be to not only hear how wonderful this person apparently is, but to also then witness the judge discounting their sentence because of these glowing reports.
Even if someone has done amazing things in the past, that doesn’t make their offending any less serious. It doesn’t diminish the impact of their offending on their victim or their victims, does it?&nbsp;
Not that good character references are going to disappear altogether in New South Wales. They’re still going to be allowed during the trial process. But they’re not going to be coming across the desk of judges when they’re about to dish out sentences.
The change follows a report by the New South Wales Sentencing Council which said the references are based on a vague and uncertain concept.
It said just because someone has a good character reference, that doesn’t tell the sentencing judge anything about the likelihood of someone re-offending or the likelihood of them being rehabilitated.
Which makes total sense.
It also says that good character discounts are traumatising for victims.
I couldn’t agree more.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Who cares about a criminal's "good character"?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/bc6abb50-038d-4056-91bd-b3e4018496a7/transcript

Talk about déjà vu. 

The smell from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley has been a shocker this week and people have had a gutsful. 

City councillor Yani Johanson says making people wait for another three years is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner.

I think it’s ridiculous that it has taken over four years for the problem to still exist.  I agree that it should be fixed sooner. But I don’t have any hope of that happening.

Because the council has cocked this up from the outset and seems incapable of doing it any faster. Which tells me that it has learnt next to nothing. 

Remember it did the big mea culpa and admitted that, at the very least, it could have communicated better with people living in the area? And how it was going to do a better job blah blah blah.

Right from the start, the council had this “we know best” attitude and was very dismissive of people’s concerns. And it’s still at it. It’s doing a very good job of explaining why it’s so bad this week - that the recent heavy rain seems to be behind it.

Which is all very well. But, as I’ve said many times, people don’t care what you know - until they know that you care.

And I don’t see the council showing too much care. Did you see the council guy on the news last night go all sheep-ish when he was asked about compo or support for people living with the stench?
        
But it’s not just Bromley that’s affected.

I was in Mairehau yesterday and the smell was really bad. 

But I’m not living with it all the time. Unlike Gaylene Ratima. She lives in Bromley and she woke up at 4 o’clock the other morning thinking the dog had done something on the carpet.

She soon realised that the rotten egg smell had nothing to do with the dog and that it was coming from outside the house.

It was the stench from the wastewater treatment plant seeping-in through the windows and doors - which were all closed.

Imagine what that must be like.

In fact, she reckons the smell this week is worse than it was after the treatment plant fire back in November 2021.

Which is why councillor Yani Johanson is saying today that making people wait for another three years for the smell problem to be fixed is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner. 

As he points out - the way things are going, it’s going to take longer than it took to build the new One New Zealand stadium.  

The fire was in November 2021 - over four years ago - and the council’s going to take another three years to fix it.

Totally unacceptable.

Talk about déjà vu.&nbsp;
The smell from the burnt-out wastewater treatment plant at Bromley has been a shocker this week and people have had a gutsful.&nbsp;
City councillor Yani Johanson says making people wait for another three years is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner.
I think it’s ridiculous that it has taken over four years for the problem to still exist. &nbsp;I agree that it should be fixed sooner. But I don’t have any hope of that happening.
Because the council has cocked this up from the outset and seems incapable of doing it any faster. Which tells me that it has learnt next to nothing.&nbsp;
Remember it did the big mea culpa and admitted that, at the very least, it could have communicated better with people living in the area? And how it was going to do a better job blah blah blah.
Right from the start, the council had this “we know best” attitude and was very dismissive of people’s concerns. And it’s still at it. It’s doing a very good job of explaining why it’s so bad this week - that the recent heavy rain seems to be behind it.
Which is all very well. But, as I’ve said many times, people don’t care what you know - until they know that you care.
And I don’t see the council showing too much care. Did you see the council guy on the news last night go all sheep-ish when he was asked about compo or support for people living with the stench? &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; But it’s not just Bromley that’s affected.
I was in Mairehau yesterday and the smell was really bad.&nbsp;
But I’m not living with it all the time. Unlike Gaylene Ratima. She lives in Bromley and she woke up at 4 o’clock the other morning thinking the dog had done something on the carpet.
She soon realised that the rotten egg smell had nothing to do with the dog and that it was coming from outside the house.
It was the stench from the wastewater treatment plant seeping-in through the windows and doors - which were all closed.
Imagine what that must be like.
In fact, she reckons the smell this week is worse than it was after the treatment plant fire back in November 2021.
Which is why councillor Yani Johanson is saying today that making people wait for another three years for the smell problem to be fixed is totally unacceptable and the council needs to get it sorted sooner.&nbsp;
As he points out - the way things are going, it’s going to take longer than it took to build the new One New Zealand stadium. &nbsp;
The fire was in November 2021 - over four years ago - and the council’s going to take another three years to fix it.
Totally unacceptable.

John MacDonald: Christchurch's seven-year stench

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/0ec78545-0301-4382-bfe1-b3e200056350/transcript

John MacDonald: There's no way less testing will mean safer driving

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips