The Government's intends to entirely phase out NCEA within five years.

The proposal would require students take English and Maths in Year 11 and sit a test in numeracy and literacy.

NCEA levels 2 and 3 would be replaced with two new qualifications in year 12 and 13 - a Certificate of Education and Advanced Certificate of Education respectively.

It's the most significant update to secondary school assessments since NCEA was introduced more than two decades ago.

LISTEN ABOVE

The Government's intends to entirely phase out NCEA within five years.
The proposal would require students take English and Maths in Year 11 and sit a test in numeracy and literacy.
NCEA levels 2 and 3 would be replaced with two new qualifications in year 12 and 13 - a Certificate of Education and Advanced Certificate of Education respectively.
It's the most significant update to secondary school assessments since NCEA was introduced more than two decades ago.
LISTEN ABOVE

Join Kerre Woodham one of New Zealand’s best loved personalities as she dishes up a bold, sharp and energetic show Monday to Friday 9am-12md on Newstalk ZB. News, opinion, analysis, lifestyle and entertainment – we’ve got your morning listening covered.

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Erica Stanford: Minister for Education joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the scrapping of NCEA

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/de297b8b-8136-410e-b232-b32f00082148/transcript

I am torn on this one because I know somebody needs to do something. That classic old talkback quote, Somebody needs to do something." Well, somebody has. The government is giving police new powers to crack down on beggars, rough sleepers, and basically nasty oiks.

Yesterday, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, Police Minister Mark Mitchell announced the new move on orders and details around when they'll be issued and who they will target. Goldsmith said we should not accept our city centres becoming places of intimidation and dysfunction. He said our main streets and town centres have been blighted by disruption and disturbance, and inner city businesses are suffering as a result. And he's right.

We've had many Auckland central city business people ringing in at their wits' end about what to do with people who've been sleeping and soiling in their shop doorways and who threaten and intimidate their customers. But the police are right, yet again, they're being told to do the dirty work, the mopping up when other agencies fail, just as they had to do when mental health services were failing the mentally ill.

President of the Police Association Steve Watt told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, it's not the police's job to move on the homeless.

It's about getting the right resource to tackle the problem. And I appreciate police are that 24 7 agency that always respond, that get things done. But the reality is, is we can't be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff every time. What we have to do is look at the problem

That's what the police are, Steve.

What we have to do is look at the problem and determine what's the best resource to deal with it. And I'd suggest in this case, it's not police.

You sound like a social worker. If somebody's lying across the footpath and abusing me because they're high on drugs and they're causing a disturbance to the peace and I can't open my business or I can't go into a shop, that's your job, isn't it?

And when you talk about the Summary Offences Act, there's offences in there that we can deal with disorderly behaviour. We can arrest people for disorderly behaviour. We can arrest people for threatening behaviour, offensive behaviour. That's not an issue, and we do that on a daily basis. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about move on orders from someone who hasn't committed an offence.

And that's the thing, isn't it? That was Steve Watt, and to be fair, there was a fairly negative reaction to his comments. Oh, get tough, get hard." But if you've met one homeless person, you've met one homeless person. They can't all be lumped together as one hopeless, God forsaken bunch.

Some of them are gentle, kind, broken souls, and I say that because I've met them and I've talked to them. And I think the police have too. So the police know there's a huge number of reasons as to why people are on the street. So some of them are just broken. They're gentle, they're kind, they're good, they're doing their best in a hopeless situation.

Others are crazy, angry, broken souls, like the completely methed out old crone that takes her clothes off, climbs a tree God, the poor tree, you know, nature doesn't judge and that's a beautiful thing, but passers by can and do and shrieks at people from the top of the tree. You know, like, no, not good. Some have been on the street since they were kids because no matter how bad the streets are, it's better than the place they call home.

 Others are victims of circumstance. Remember the man who rang us? He was living in his car despite being a homeowner and formerly having a six figure salary. The drink had got to him. So in a moment of absolute clarity, he'd put tenants in the house so he didn't lose it and couch surfed till all his friends gave up on him they'd had a gutsful and he was living in his car waiting to get into a treatment centre. And I hope he's there now. I think he should be, shouldn't he, Helen? He said he was I think due to go in. And I hope he's doing well. And I have met some really lovely, lovely humans who happen to be homeless, some by choice, some by circumstance.

I've also endured foul mouthed, foul smelling, aggressive humans who I've had to cross the road to get away from. So you can't just lump the homeless into one lot. There's a thousand different reasons why they're there, and the police are quite right. The agencies, the social agencies are the ones who should be trying to help them.

Some of them won't be helped. And if, you know, if they're committing crimes, move them on. None of us should have to put up with abuse and intimidation, nor deal with the filth created by other people, no matter how damaged they are. So I'm really torn. You know, as the police say, if we're moving on the rough sleepers, who's responding to your burglary? Well, Steve, actually at the moment nobody is.

You know, very few, you don't get an instant police response at the moment anyway, so it's not like you're going to be suddenly dragged away from my burglary to move a rough sleeper on. Something had to be done. I quite agree. You just can't have the kind of fighting, nakedness, foulness anywhere. Nobody should have to put up with that, least of all people who are getting up early and trying to make a living, and the customers who are trying to support them shouldn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense either.

But at the same time, we need agencies to help those who want help, who would like to be helped, who would like to live in a home. And if that's the agencies not doing their job, then get onto them rather than leave it to the police to do the mopping up yet again.

LISTEN ABOVE

I am torn on this one because I know somebody needs to do something. That classic old talkback quote, Somebody needs to do something." Well, somebody has. The government is giving police new powers to crack down on beggars, rough sleepers, and basically nasty oiks.
Yesterday, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, Police Minister Mark Mitchell announced the new move on orders and details around when they'll be issued and who they will target. Goldsmith said we should not accept our city centres becoming places of intimidation and dysfunction. He said our main streets and town centres have been blighted by disruption and disturbance, and inner city businesses are suffering as a result. And he's right.
We've had many Auckland central city business people ringing in at their wits' end about what to do with people who've been sleeping and soiling in their shop doorways and who threaten and intimidate their customers. But the police are right, yet again, they're being told to do the dirty work, the mopping up when other agencies fail, just as they had to do when mental health services were failing the mentally ill.
President of the Police Association Steve Watt told the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, it's not the police's job to move on the homeless.
It's about getting the right resource to tackle the problem. And I appreciate police are that 24 7 agency that always respond, that get things done. But the reality is, is we can't be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff every time. What we have to do is look at the problem
That's what the police are, Steve.
What we have to do is look at the problem and determine what's the best resource to deal with it. And I'd suggest in this case, it's not police.
You sound like a social worker. If somebody's lying across the footpath and abusing me because they're high on drugs and they're causing a disturbance to the peace and I can't open my business or I can't go into a shop, that's your job, isn't it?
And when you talk about the Summary Offences Act, there's offences in there that we can deal with disorderly behaviour. We can arrest people for disorderly behaviour. We can arrest people for threatening behaviour, offensive behaviour. That's not an issue, and we do that on a daily basis. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about move on orders from someone who hasn't committed an offence.
And that's the thing, isn't it? That was Steve Watt, and to be fair, there was a fairly negative reaction to his comments. Oh, get tough, get hard." But if you've met one homeless person, you've met one homeless person. They can't all be lumped together as one hopeless, God forsaken bunch.
Some of them are gentle, kind, broken souls, and I say that because I've met them and I've talked to them. And I think the police have too. So the police know there's a huge number of reasons as to why people are on the street. So some of them are just broken. They're gentle, they're kind, they're good, they're doing their best in a hopeless situation.
Others are crazy, angry, broken souls, like the completely methed out old crone that takes her clothes off, climbs a tree God, the poor tree, you know, nature doesn't judge and that's a beautiful thing, but passers by can and do and shrieks at people from the top of the tree. You know, like, no, not good. Some have been on the street since they were kids because no matter how bad the streets are, it's better than the place they call home.
&nbsp;Others are victims of circumstance. Remember the man who rang us? He was living in his car despite being a homeowner and formerly having a six figure salary. The drink had got to him. So in a moment of absolute clarity, he'd put tenants in the house so he didn't lose it and couch surfed till all his friends gave up on him they'd had a gutsful and he was living in his car waiting to get into a treatment centre. And I hope he's there now. I think he should be, shouldn't he, Helen? He said he was I think due to go in. And I hope he's doing well. And I have met some really lovely, lovely humans who happen to be homeless, some by choice, some by circumstance.
I've also endured foul mouthed, foul smelling, aggressive humans who I've had to cross the road to get away from. So you can't just lump the homeless into one lot. There's a thousand different reasons why they're there, and the police are quite right. The agencies, the social agencies are the ones who should be trying to help them.
Some of them won't be helped. And if, you know, if they're committing crimes, move them on. None of us should have to put up with abuse and intimidation, nor deal with the filth created by other people, no matter how damaged they are. So I'm really torn. You know, as the police say, if we're moving on the rough sleepers, who's responding to your burglary? Well, Steve, actually at the moment nobody is.
You know, very few, you don't get an instant police response at the moment anyway, so it's not like you're going to be suddenly dragged away from my burglary to move a rough sleeper on. Something had to be done. I quite agree. You just can't have the kind of fighting, nakedness, foulness anywhere. Nobody should have to put up with that, least of all people who are getting up early and trying to make a living, and the customers who are trying to support them shouldn't have to deal with that sort of nonsense either.
But at the same time, we need agencies to help those who want help, who would like to be helped, who would like to live in a home. And if that's the agencies not doing their job, then get onto them rather than leave it to the police to do the mopping up yet again.
LISTEN ABOVE

Kerre Woodham: You can't lump the homeless into one group

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/b446755c-a678-492c-a84d-b3f9016d9ac5/transcript

The Government is providing police with the power to issue move-on orders as a tool to deal with disorderly behaviour in public places.

But, the Police Association says it can't always be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

President Steve Watt says these people on the streets have complex problems, include housing, mental health and financial issues - and Police aren't equipped to deal with these.

Minister of Police Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham that the Police Association had the same response to the gang patch ban, yet were able to act once the law was in place. 

LISTEN ABOVE

The Government is providing police with the power to issue move-on orders as a tool to deal with disorderly behaviour in public places.
But, the Police Association says it can't always be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.
President Steve Watt says these people on the streets have complex problems, include housing, mental health and financial issues - and Police aren't equipped to deal with these.
Minister of Police Mark Mitchell told Kerre Woodham that the Police Association had the same response to the gang patch ban, yet were able to act once the law was in place.&nbsp;
LISTEN ABOVE

Mark Mitchell: Police Minister discusses the proposed 'move on' order

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/1d9ab992-a0a1-415d-afef-b3f90169296e/transcript

We thought we'd start with the housing densification or de-densification that was announced yesterday. We didn't really get a chance to talk about it despite the fact that yesterday when the Prime Minister was in for an hour, he gave us a bit of an announcement of an announcement. 

“Long story short is what Chris will announce is a significant reduction in the capacity, which means that then actually that pressure of intensifying our suburbs in Auckland goes away. And what we want to see is intensification happening in the right places. Over the CBD, the transport hubs, the town centres, we should be densifying and putting more intensification. So where would the density occur? Should occur in the CBD, in the town centres, in the transport hubs that we've got across the across Auckland City, but not in the suburbs.” 

Didn't have to wait very long for the actual announcement, because a few hours later, Housing Minister Chris Bishop announced sweeping changes to housing densification in Auckland, with dwelling capacity being slashed from 2 million homes to 1.6 million. The housing intensification will still go ahead near transport hubs, rail corridors, and the CBD. Chris Bishop said yesterday that the 2 million housing figure had become a red herring that transformed into a lightning rod. Basically, people felt that 2 million houses would be put up right next door to them. That was the kind of irrational thinking behind it. There were concerns about who would be there, what sort of housing developments would go there, where people would shop, how people would get to work, where people would go to school. They were legitimate concerns, but there was, I agree with Chris Bishop, that 2 million suddenly became 2 million people will be next door to me. And he said the changes made yesterday were a response to public feedback. Hamish Firth, who you will have heard on this show before, who is most excellent, who is an urban planner, who was stolen by the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, said the changes announced by the Minister yesterday made sense. 

“What we've got to be very careful when you suddenly throw 2 million out there is you create paper capacity, but you're going to create community backlash, you're going to create land value distortion, and you're probably not going to create any extra homes, especially against the backdrop of what was a very well written Auckland Unitary Plan. At the end of the day, targets don't build houses, infrastructure and feasibility do. And what you'll find right now is a lot of high rise buildings are very expensive to build, and they only get built, as you're starting to see, in very high end areas where the developer can achieve a very high end outcome. So just because you can build to 50 doesn't mean many of these sites will or may, and I think that some thought has to go into that.”

Does this allay the fears you might have had about intensification of housing? Does the fact that the Government has listened show a government that is concerned and understands and appreciates the fears of well, many around the country, because what happens in Auckland quite often filters through to the rest of the country? That by being willing to listen, that shows, you know, a reasonable kind of a government. Labour was shouting about a u-turn and they've got it all wrong and they've had to backpedal. But a couple of texters yesterday, because I said to the Prime Minister yesterday, this just looks like you're looking after the voters in the leafy suburbs. And a couple of people from the leafy suburbs said it makes no sense to put people in areas where there is no transport hub, where there are no schools. And I think that's a perfectly valid point and I accept that. And when the PM said yesterday that you could pop up housing developments, you know, put 100 homes into an area without having to provide for transport, without having to provide for schools, there was no thought to it, you could just sell off the land and the council'd say, “Yeah, sure, you can turn that into a development," – that doesn't make sense either. There's got to be planning and forethought when you are putting in new homes. That's what will create a thriving community. Putting it around the transport hubs, great. Putting it in the CBD and the and the suburbs closest to the CBD, great. Watch new communities develop.  

Does that allay the fears that people had now? First home buyers, there have never been more of them right now, and that's pleasing. We never want to see the kind of rorting and speculation that we saw with housing prices, and an increase in supply will help mitigate that. And we don't want to see people stranded in the middle of nowhere in housing developments that have put a roof over their head but precious little else. So love to hear from you on this, especially if you had concerns at the time. Does this kind of tinkering with the plan, this kind of revisiting of the plan, is that a tick for the government to say, Okay, you took the feedback on, you listened," and does this make you perhaps less fearful of what housing intensification is going to look like, what providing homes for future New Zealanders looks like in the future. 

We thought we'd start with the housing densification or de-densification that was announced yesterday. We didn't really get a chance to talk about it despite the fact that yesterday when the Prime Minister was in for an hour, he gave us a bit of an announcement of an announcement.&nbsp;
“Long story short is what Chris will announce is a significant reduction in the capacity, which means that then actually that pressure of intensifying our suburbs in Auckland goes away. And what we want to see is intensification happening in the right places. Over the CBD, the transport hubs, the town centres, we should be densifying and putting more intensification. So where would the density occur? Should occur in the CBD, in the town centres, in the transport hubs that we've got across the across Auckland City, but not in the suburbs.”&nbsp;
Didn't have to wait very long for the actual announcement, because a few hours later, Housing Minister Chris Bishop announced sweeping changes to housing densification in Auckland, with dwelling capacity being slashed from 2 million homes to 1.6 million. The housing intensification will still go ahead near transport hubs, rail corridors, and the CBD. Chris Bishop said yesterday that the 2 million housing figure had become a red herring that transformed into a lightning rod. Basically, people felt that 2 million houses would be put up right next door to them. That was the kind of irrational thinking behind it. There were concerns about who would be there, what sort of housing developments would go there, where people would shop, how people would get to work, where people would go to school. They were legitimate concerns, but there was, I agree with Chris Bishop, that 2 million suddenly became 2 million people will be next door to me. And he said the changes made yesterday were a response to public feedback. Hamish Firth, who you will have heard on this show before, who is most excellent, who is an urban planner, who was stolen by the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning, said the changes announced by the Minister yesterday made sense.&nbsp;
“What we've got to be very careful when you suddenly throw 2 million out there is you create paper capacity, but you're going to create community backlash, you're going to create land value distortion, and you're probably not going to create any extra homes, especially against the backdrop of what was a very well written Auckland Unitary Plan. At the end of the day, targets don't build houses, infrastructure and feasibility do. And what you'll find right now is a lot of high rise buildings are very expensive to build, and they only get built, as you're starting to see, in very high end areas where the developer can achieve a very high end outcome. So just because you can build to 50 doesn't mean many of these sites will or may, and I think that some thought has to go into that.”
Does this allay the fears you might have had about intensification of housing? Does the fact that the Government has listened show a government that is concerned and understands and appreciates the fears of well, many around the country, because what happens in Auckland quite often filters through to the rest of the country? That by being willing to listen, that shows, you know, a reasonable kind of a government. Labour was shouting about a u-turn and they've got it all wrong and they've had to backpedal. But a couple of texters yesterday, because I said to the Prime Minister yesterday, this just looks like you're looking after the voters in the leafy suburbs. And a couple of people from the leafy suburbs said it makes no sense to put people in areas where there is no transport hub, where there are no schools. And I think that's a perfectly valid point and I accept that. And when the PM said yesterday that you could pop up housing developments, you know, put 100 homes into an area without having to provide for transport, without having to provide for schools, there was no thought to it, you could just sell off the land and the council'd say, “Yeah, sure, you can turn that into a development," – that doesn't make sense either. There's got to be planning and forethought when you are putting in new homes. That's what will create a thriving community. Putting it around the transport hubs, great. Putting it in the CBD and the and the suburbs closest to the CBD, great. Watch new communities develop. &nbsp;
Does that allay the fears that people had now? First home buyers, there have never been more of them right now, and that's pleasing. We never want to see the kind of rorting and speculation that we saw with housing prices, and an increase in supply will help mitigate that. And we don't want to see people stranded in the middle of nowhere in housing developments that have put a roof over their head but precious little else. So love to hear from you on this, especially if you had concerns at the time. Does this kind of tinkering with the plan, this kind of revisiting of the plan, is that a tick for the government to say, Okay, you took the feedback on, you listened," and does this make you perhaps less fearful of what housing intensification is going to look like, what providing homes for future New Zealanders looks like in the future.&nbsp;

Kerre Woodham: Did the intensification announcement allay your fears?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/fe287e20-d9dc-4a39-86c5-b3f70002207e/transcript

Erica Stanford: Minister for Education joins Kerre Woodham to discuss the scrapping of NCEA

In 1 playlist(s)

Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips