Maharey Steve: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Maharey Steve: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2433] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 That seems to be the contribution from the National Party. I will begin with Mr Peachey’s contribution because it is good to see him. The other day we shared a platform together at Rangitoto College which of course was Mr Peachey’s school. I had not been there before and I thought it was a fantastic school. I say to the member that we might disagree on politics in here but that school is a credit to him even apart from the physical presence of the island and so on. The pupils and teachers I met in getting around the school certainly stood him well and I thought I should pass on to him my observations from that day. 
The member touched on two questions. Let me start with the case of the physics teacher. As the member will know of course that is a New Zealand Teachers Council registration issue not a New Zealand Qualifications Authority issue. It is a matter of whether we can register the particular teacher and I certainly take a personal interest in those kinds of issues. I hope that will help to set the member’s mind at rest a little. I too am concerned when we are trying to recruit a large number of teachers over the next few years because of changes in policy. We will need more teachers in front of kids throughout the country and when we are trying to emphasise areas like science we certainly want well-qualified teachers—and this person seems to be one. So I have asked for a particular look at that teacher. The issue is a Teachers Council registration issue and I think that is appropriate. 
I understand the argument being made in relation to the question of trusting the judgment of the school but the member must think about what it would be like if the situation were transposed. We are talking about an issue of professional status. It would be a little like saying: “Why don’t we trust local city doctors to hire a doctor?”. We would not do that; the Medical Council of New Zealand has to register the doctor. We would make the same argument with engineers psychologists or whatever. I am totally committed to the professionalisation of teachers. That means that there needs to be a professional body that registers them and that is what we will try to do. I think the member makes a good point but if we can support each other through the process of trying to make sure that that person can be registered we can probably have him back in that school and I hope we can do that. 
In relation to the 20 percent figure the Education Review Office has tried to clarify the matter. It was raised in the context of a select committee discussion. What the office has tried to argue is that like most countries we share—and I do not like this word—the notion of “tail” which the underachieving group that we are all concerned about. The office estimates that across different subjects maths English and so on there are about 20 percent of young New Zealanders spread across our schools—which is the interesting part of our debate here in New Zealand—who are in one subject or another probably not doing as well as they should be. They are not illiterate as originally I heard the member suggest in the House but they are in a situation where they are not really up to where they ought to be for their age group. That is a big challenge for us because we are not talking about a particular section of the community lumped into one area of the country; we are talking about a situation where we seem to have that underachievement across our schools and I think it is right that we identify that. I think it is right that we do something about it. 
I do not accept that that is an issue where we should start to say to ourselves that it is somehow to be explained as a revelation. It has always been the case of course that we have had young people in our schools who are not achieving to the level they ought to for their age group. The question is: what do we do about it? And that is what I am committed to. That is why I think it is good that the Education Review Office has raised this debate and that is why it is good that we are talking to schools and asking them what they are doing about underachievement—just as we would ask them about gifted children and so on. So that is what I understand them to mean. It is not a case of 20 percent—as one group we can point out—who are illiterate innumerate and unable to do x y and z. Young people are experiencing underachievement in different subjects. We need to do something about it to fix the problem. 
Let me go back to Mr English for a moment. It is always interesting to start a debate with somebody who on the whole is basically angry deep down. He will have to deal with that in any way he wants to as time goes by. He is still a young man; he has a chance to do that. It is interesting to listen to Mr English get up and accuse everybody else of failure when this is a man who ran the health system in the 1990s and was a Minister of Finance in the National Government during a time of recession and crippling performance in our economy. This is a man who was the education person in the National Party when that party was about as popular as a pork chop in a synagogue. That was about the state of things—I am sure Mr Peachey would agree. Mr English was extraordinarily unpopular. 
Darren Hughes 
: How did he go as a leader? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will come back to the leadership in a moment. I know that he has been going around telling people what will happen in the National Party. [ 
Interruption 
] I am starting on him because he started on me so I am replying to that. He has been going around talking about education and saying that he will not change National Party policy. This means that bulk funding and performance pay are still on the website as National Party policy. 
I come back to the leadership issue as my colleague over here prompts me. Mr English is a man who wants to talk about failure. He was the leader of the National Party but he is not now. I call that failure. He asked me to talk about the tertiary education sector and I list the following things. Will National Party members change the Gateway programme? It is a staggering success and we introduced it. Will they change the Modern Apprenticeships programme? I introduced that and it is staggering success. They will not change that either. Will they change the industry training policy? It is a staggering success. No they will not change that either. Will they change the Performance-based Research Fund? We introduced that. Will they change it? No they will not change that either. Will they take out the centres of research excellence? We introduced those. No they will not change those either. Will they change the regulation of student fees? No they will not change that either. They say they will let it all go but they will not do that. 
Will National members change the loan scheme that we have put in place? No they will not change that. They will even leave the interest-free loans alone. Will they carry on with allowances? We made changes to them. Will they change them? No they will not change them either. Will they change the amalgamation of colleges of education with universities? No they will not change that either. Will they change the charters and profiles we have put in place? No they will not change that either. Will they change the emphasis on quality? Will they change the emphasis that comes through from the Tertiary Education Commission to have a strategic investment? No they will not. All of these things have been put in place and we are now on to the next bit. I say to the member that I will put my record next to his record of failure any day of the week. His record is one of failure and mine is one of success. 
I move on to schools. The member did not talk much about schools. He spent most of his time on one very very small amount of policy called SchoolSmart but he did not talk much at all about schools apart from that. I notice that he did not make his routine attack on the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). I know that Mr English does not support NCEA. He is obviously opposed to standards-based assessment. If he is not opposed to it then he spent the whole summer on it after saying he would leave the issue alone. One person wrote to me and stated that Mr English has put out 13 different releases after saying he was going to leave the issue alone over summer. NCEA performed very well. Karen Sewell the acting chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is a wonderful person. 
Hon Bill English 
: So why are you doing a review? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We are doing a review because we promised to do one. For those at home I point out that Mr English is interjecting about why we should do a review. We promised to improve the NCEA. We promised to make sure it is something that all New Zealanders can rely on—that it is a blue-chip system of assessment. I know that Mr English disagrees with this and is against standards-based assessment but we agree with it. We think that this year the NCEA did a good job. We think the teachers worked extraordinarily hard. We know that Mr McCully and Mr English have consistently undermined the professional standing of Karen Sewell but we happen to think she did a great job. We respect what she has done over the summer period. 
We have laid a good foundation for NCEA and scholarship. They are doing well and now we will review them and carry on reviewing them until they are absolutely perfect. We will have the best assessment system this country has ever seen because that is what our kids deserve that is what our parents want that is what our employers need and that is what we are going to have. I will not allow someone who disagrees with standards-based assessment to get in the way of it by this constant whingeing and carping. Mr English is the only critic of NCEA that I can find left in the country. Everybody else is now committed to make sure this thing works. I think the National Party should take Mr English aside and say to him: “For goodness’ sake if you have a good idea let’s hear it but if you haven’t let us get on and make sure this thing works.”. That is where I think we are at with that kind of debate. Apart from that I did not see anything else raised by Mr English. This leads me back to saying— 
Hon Bill English 
: What about SchoolSmart? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have touched on SchoolSmart and I have given all the answers I am that I am going to which is that SchoolSmart is accessible to parents. They just go along to the school and they can talk about it or schools themselves can make it available to parents. I know that Mr English wants to do this in a different way but that is the way schools want it done that is the way I believe it should be done and that is the way parents want it done. I have consulted the New Zealand School Trustees Association and it wants it done exactly that way. We are all happy but the lone critic is not. So the lone critic can carry on being the lone critic. As long as he is the education spokesperson for the National Party he will be one of the many reasons why the National Party will never return to Government. No one wants someone who is as isolated as he is in the education debate trying to lead that kind of debate. 
I will close by saying that I inherited from Trevor Mallard an outstanding education portfolio. Over the last little while I have travelled and I have talked to a large number of people in schools and to virtually every stakeholder group right across the country. I am going to many conferences at the present time and I am talking to groups of people who are absolutely committed to being part of a world-class education system. That is what I am going to emphasise for the next 3 years. We have a fantastic system and we intend to make it even better. 
Report noted.