Benson-Pope David: Urgent Debates — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
Benson-Pope David: Urgent Debates — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
[Volume:623;Page:18472] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 I welcome this snap debate. The 2004 national scholarship results and the issues they have raised are worthy of debate. I only regret that the contribution we have just heard was so sadly hysterical and self-indulgent. 
Assessment in both our education system generally and more narrowly in our schools is in transition. It is in transition from a system that fitted a simpler New Zealand as it once was to a system that is fit for a New Zealand that is economically and socially much more complex and fast moving. It is a system that is in transition and we have clearly encountered a difficulty. The Government has moved to ensure that no student is disadvantaged as a result of that and that is good. But in those subjects where students have done exceptionally well at National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 3 and when the subject is under-represented at scholarship level we are introducing the distinction certificate in recognition of the student’s achievements. 
At the same time there will be a new distinction award. Students who have a combination of scholarship passes and distinction certificates in any three scholarship subjects will be eligible for an award of $1500 per year for 3 years. These awards combined with the package of new awards announced previously mean that around 215 more students will therefore be eligible for financial rewards of this kind. This largely mitigates the financial impact of the variances in the 2004 results. 
It is worth noting that the Government is making serious commitments here. When the scholarship was pegged to the old bursary system about 60 students were awarded substantial monetary awards whereas now over 500 students will be eligible for significant awards that will make a real difference to their finances for their university studies. Instead of giving large numbers of students token payments of $100 to $200 we are giving more students real financial support. 
So that is what we have done but what is important for the House and the education sector is to calmly and dispassionately assess the underlying issues. There is nothing to be gained by denigrating a system that is endorsed by pretty much everyone—the Post Primary Teachers Association the Parent Teachers Association employers and students. The only group missing is the National Party. The essential point is that we no longer use scaling. The scholarship results that I released yesterday are real numbers. This is very different from what happened in the past. Now we see in the numbers what the students actually achieved as assessed against the curriculum their teachers taught. 
The practical task now for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for the ministry for the curriculum setters for the assessors for principals and teachers for our universities and for other tertiary providers for whom understanding these results is so important is to look at explaining and reducing this variability. Finding a suitable and appropriate way forward will come from— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that the rules on written speeches have been relaxed and I appreciate that nowadays members are allowed to come down to the House and read a speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: They most certainly are. That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: My point is that the process for getting a snap debate is that an Opposition party makes a case and gives that in a letter to the Speaker who considers the matter. We assumed somewhat— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If I cannot make a point here where can I make it? This is about all of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You can make it in the debate but you are not referring to any process that is not within the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It surprises the National Party. We did not know there would be a snap debate awarded until the end of question time but somehow the Minister who was in the House right through question time is able to stand up after a snap debate is announced and read a pre-prepared speech. I just wonder how on earth he got the information that the Speaker would allow such a debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I am sure you were able to say what you wanted to say. It was not a point of order. The Minister is quite within his rights to speak in the way he is and to use whatever guidance he needs. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for a point of clarification. Are members advised of the applications for urgent debate? My understanding is that we know if we have put in an application but we have no idea whether the National Party has put one in. It is very clear here that someone has tipped off the Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I know that we are in a slightly unusual position because for a number of members it has been some time since they have had the experience of being in Government. The two members who raised points of order have not had any experience at all. This Government always prepares for possible urgent debates and certainly Governments generally did so in the 1980s. We were ready for this debate yesterday. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: A very serious issue has been raised. It goes right to the heart of the integrity of the Speakership of this Parliament. I was a Minister for 9 years and what the Hon Trevor Mallard has said is absolute arrant nonsense. 
 The issue is this: the decision as to whether a snap debate is allowed is the absolute right of the Speaker. What is concerning the Opposition today is it would appear that there may have been advice to a Minister about the outcome of the Speaker’s decision prior to this Parliament being advised of that decision. I believe that we deserve an absolute assurance that that has not happened because that goes right to the heart of the impartial Chairmanship of this House. The Speaker is Parliament’s person; the Speaker is responsible to Parliament for making the decisions on snap debates. We honour and respect those decisions and we must have an assurance that there has not been prior advice to any Minister of the outcome of such a decision. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I will reply very quickly and it may help members. I am prepared to table the top of the Labour speaking list—something that is most unusual—a list that is circulated before the closing time for debates which indicates that today Labour had a speaking list and was prepared for debates on scholarships and light armoured vehicles. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to make a comment myself on this matter because it is an important one. I agree with the member. Yesterday at the Business Committee I said and I know there are members present who were there then who heard me say: “I could write a very good letter if I were an Opposition member about this subject.” I made that comment. I then walked out. I have had no other comment made by me and I certainly do not tell the Government what it will be having debates on. It could have had a debate on the LAVIIIs; it could have had a debate on this subject. I judged that one was acceptable and I gave that decision. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just another question: is it possible for members before you make your ruling to discover what letters are in your hands? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. On this occasion I actually went to Mr Brownlee and said that he put in two letters yesterday which he did very promptly and very efficiently. I asked whether he wanted me to read out the one that was going to be declined or just accept the one that was going to be accepted. I did that about 20 minutes before the end of question time. 
Rodney Hide 
:I am sorry we misunderstood. For example we did not know that the National Party had put in two letters. Is it possible for members of other parties to discover before you make your decision which letters are before you for consideration? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only if those parties tell those members. I do not tell anybody anything. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just make it very clear that this little issue probably has arisen not in a way to try to impugn you at all or more important the office of the Speaker. I just want to suggest that it is rather disappointing in a debate like this where there is such public interest that a Minister does resort to a very tight script in the offering that he makes to the House. It does I think lead to members becoming a little bit concerned that the nature of the comment being made is less than genuine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that as far as I am concerned if I had been Minister of Education and with the events that have occurred I most certainly would have been preparing for a debate and I would have been preparing very tightly and closely. 
Now as far as the speech is concerned the member knows there is no rule against the reading of speeches. I do not particularly happen to agree with that ruling but that is the rule of the House. I was listening on the radio to what the Minister was saying. He was in no way going against the Standing Orders and I want just to repeat that as far as I am concerned I most certainly did not discuss this issue with the Minister. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In our schools we need to ensure that students are being correctly prepared for these examinations that rightly target our academic elite. In particular we need to form judgments about where the scholarship requires skills and aptitudes that are different from level 3 NCEA and if so deliver these to our students. The 2004 New Zealand Scholarship science exams placed a very high premium on abstract discursive writing in the language of science but did they place too high a premium on it? That is a question for all of us to ask and in due course answer. How does that relate to the skills required for a top-end career in the sciences? 
Before I discuss the wider context of this issue it is important to briefly put to bed the question of accountability. I am not particularly interested in witch-hunts or blame. I want better options from here on. I have made clear to the Qualifications Authority and the ministry that the Government should have learnt about this issue sooner. That is something that they need to look at in terms of their management systems. That said they do have their sleeves rolled up and are getting on with what needs to happen next. I will be taking an extremely close interest as members will understand in the results of that work. 
Likewise I have no desire to criticise the nation’s teachers—far from it. They are as hard-working and as passionate in their professional commitment as they ever could be. The fact that we have made the extraordinary progress we have with the introduction of this system over 3 years is testimony to that. The fact of the matter is that NCEA and the qualifications framework reforms of the last few years have been vast. The pace of change has been very fast possibly too fast. So it is no surprise that there have been rough edges. What I am looking for now is consolidation refinement and a maturing evolution of systems. And I am looking for the education sector to forget its squabbles and to stay on task. 
New Zealand is not the New Zealand for which the old system of School Certificate was created. In the 1950s 1960s and 1970s our economy was very simple: a system that failed half the kids had behind it a picture of an economy in which the bright kids went on to go into the professions and the rest went into a trade learnt from on-the-job apprenticeships or they spent their working lives essentially as unskilled labourers farm workers or shop workers and the like. So half pass - half fail was a cull for picking winners and losers and managing privilege; something pretty keen to the philosophy and minds of the Opposition. 
We are not in that world now and our education system cannot be either. Our economy is now high-tech and skills-based. The demand for unskilled labour is now very limited even when the economy is booming. Most people now do some kind of tertiary training after they leave school. Most people retrain many times in their working lives. Very few people indeed work for the one firm for 40 years. In this world schools need to tailor their tuition programmes to fit local interest the local economy and above all the individual abilities of the youngsters they are teaching. Education must liberate not standardise and that is what NCEA enables. So instead of pupils just doing say fifth form biology and so on they do a series of papers or standards customised by the individual school to meet their particular needs. Then the results are reported standard by standard in detail in the records that young people bring to prospective employers and the like. This is better than just say 70 percent in English 60 percent in physics 50 percent in chemistry—all scaled of course to mean very little indeed. In fact scaling was often a technique for making people look better than they really were and for masking bad teaching and dreary curricula. 
Some say NCEA is dumbing down education. In fact the opposite is true—NCEA is tough; it demands much more of the students than the old system. NCEA also in no way impedes bright kids from racing ahead—indeed it encourages them. If a bright child wants he or she can take some particular papers or standards at a more advanced level than his or her chronological age would suggest. Individual programmes can be tailored to a youngster’s strengths and weaknesses and this again fits an economy and a society that wants to encourage diversity unlike the National Party. An assessment system that said half of the population were failures will not do. Everyone has value everyone has abilities and in the fast-paced digital economy of today no one can be wasted. Our education system must help all young people not just those going into the professions. It must help them to find and nurture their abilities. 
NCEA is clearly still controversial. It is very new—just 3 years in practice and within the education sector people are still learning how to utilise its full potential. But we should be excited by these changes not denigrating them. I am confident that as a direct result of NCEA the New Zealand secondary education system will look very different 20 years from now compared to today and for the better. Twenty years from now the tuition programmes in our schools will vary more school by school. Within schools programmes of learning for individual pupils will be more and more tailored to what each pupil needs and that is very much something to look forward to.