Peters Jim: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Peters Jim: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18342] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 It is rather astounding as my colleague noted that throughout the whole course of the debate from the Prime Minister and members opposite scarcely a word has been said about the farming community. Therefore I waited with great interest when the Minister of Agriculture a man of great fortitude and independence—I seem to recall he was the member who told his party that its forestry policy was wrong some years ago—stood and spoke for 9.5 minutes about all sorts of irrelevant issues. It was not until the very last part of his speech that he deigned to give us a few seconds about world trade and something called productivity. He gave not one word of tribute to the farming community. 
Other speakers have railed over how wonderful the economy is but there has not been one word of acknowledgment of past administrations or about the fact that in 1999 the farming economy was buoyant and has remained so ever since. I can recall that in 1994-95 lambs were making $23 apiece. By 1998-99 the average price for a good draft was $65. Today it is $75 to $80 depending on where people are. The dairy farming community has enjoyed that same success and beef farming hitherto throughout the whole of that period. Virtually it was only deer farming in the area of venison that suffered a drop in prices. All of that put together is an accumulated base of surplus funds for this country which this Government has squandered. It has squandered the opportunities provided by the 60 to 65 percent of the rural community that earned the bulk of that wealth. 
In fairness to the Government when I think back over the last 5 years and try to work out how farmers benefited from this administration the only matter that comes to mind is the speeded-up process by which Fonterra was formed from the amalgamation of Kiwi Dairy and New Zealand Dairy. Not one other feature of the rural community has benefited yet. The Minister talked about trade. We know what has happened there. He has gone overseas on numerous trips and returned but at this point in time there is scarcely one advantageous trade agreement or deal in place that benefits the rural economy now or one that the country can look forward to with some confidence. 
But the picture is worse than that. This very week many many students went back to school. I want quickly to look at the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) so-called because the students who have gone off this year after 3 years of a project that one could say was a medium success—and from which we heard today the Minister will draw conclusions—cannot regard it with confidence. The NCEA had the broad support of most parties in the House but at this point in 2005 that achievement award needs a review. There are two issues in respect of that whole award. First the aggregation of achievement standards and unit standards thereby taking out the identity and the status of the vocational subjects and the industry training groups was a mistake. Last year we heard much in the House about how the New Zealand Qualifications Authority made Cambridge High School a whipping school with regard to that award. That school had gone ahead and taken out of the then New Zealand Qualifications Authority criteria for NCEA exactly what was required—namely that credits would be awarded and that the 80 at level 1 60 at level 2 and 42 at level 3 could be gained in any way. The school took those criteria and put together what the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has subsequently said was a disproportionate and fragmented use of the credit system. 
The point I want to emphasise right now is that every other school did the same. In April when we finally have the list of the qualifications gained by students last year we will see a disparate range of credits gained ranging right across vocational achievement. The whole thing is an amalgam of supposed credits and in many cases without there being any central rationale to what the student has done. Schools did it last year. They are doing it now and they will do it in the future. The Minister should take up this matter not just with regard to the recent issues that have emerged with Scholarship—some of which we told the Minister at the time would happen—but with both levels 1 and 2 as well.