Peters Jim: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Peters Jim: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:619;Page:14965] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to matters in the current Budget notably in regard to education. The first issues I want to raise concerning the current year are those of student allowances student loans and the married student scheme. We are aware that there was a recent change in Government policy that allowed married students over the age of 25 to receive the student allowance. But the Budget as from next year links those students back to their parents’ incomes and only those who are really eligible in that regard will be able to claim the student allowance. One of the issues we face in our community at the present time is that the assistance coming through is dramatically unfair. Those parents who are already subsidising education through their taxes—the education of the lucky students who can claim student allowances—will now even if their own children are only barely over the threshold have to provide for others as well. 
In 1999 the present Government came to power with a promise that the student loan scheme would be changed—but the changes have been minimal. We have a situation today in 2004 when there is little but minor change in the Budget with regard to the student loan scheme. We all know that student tuition fees and student indebtedness have an impact on the courses that people are able to undertake and affect the quality of students’ learning environment their academic performance and the choices for life they are able to make. Most of all the increased burden of the student loan scheme means an inability for students in time to secure a home-loan mortgage. Bank managers admit that students are disadvantaged. Those who marry find that marriage is not an option out of the scheme and those who bear children have to take time off in order to proceed. Academic standards and performance are under threat while there is this consistent issue of the student allowance. 
In recent days we have had editorials in the  
Dominion Post  
and in other newspapers that bring back to the Government the fact that there is not adequate provision at present for student allowances and for student participation in education. 
But the real issue I want to raise today is that of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and the forecasted spending for that qualification for this year. Before us in recent days we have had the example of Cambridge High School but I will forbear to speak strongly on matters that are not yet in the public domain with regard to NCEA. This national certificate has long been an issue. It was nurtured by Dr the Hon. Lockwood Smith carried through by the Hon. Dr Nick Smith and embraced wholeheartedly—and I believe without adequate care and time—by the present Minister of Education. 
We have before us not just a Cambridge High School issue but an issue throughout the whole secondary school system. In respect of the education ministry’s forecast for spending this year particularly with regard to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority there are serious issues. One of the issues that has developed from Cambridge High School is misunderstanding as to how the National Certificate of Educational Achievement could be formulated. The school tried to amalgamate into one system—and for very desirable reasons although I believe that those reasons will not be seen as worthy in the long term—unit standards which were industry-developed under and accredited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and achievement standards which were a reformulation of what we formerly knew as School Certificate Sixth Form Certificate and bursary. 
That amalgamation developed by the present ministry in recent years with increasing quantities of statements has not been sound but at Cambridge High School the issue was: just what did happen there? Can I say in passing that Cambridge High School was a school that developed from having indifferent standards in 1992 into being an outstanding school under an outstanding principal and an outstanding board. But without an understanding of NCEA as that qualification has developed and without an understanding of the role of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority something has been lacking according to recent comment and the more recent reports issued by various bodies. 
I turn to the fact that at Avondale College Brent Lewis—who used to teach in this district—talked about what this system is about. He said that schools have set up withdrawal systems for students to go away and do units and have organised little subgroups in classes to do special credits. These activities are not unique to Cambridge High School; they are a logical consequence of the system. It is a system whereby one can earn six credits for bone carving in 2 days’ work as against six credits for one quarter of a year 11 student’s total work in English for 2004. That result is an indication that this system which has been thought to be at fault in Cambridge High School is not just at fault there. It is a system that I on behalf of New Zealand First believe needs to be re-examined. 
 We believe in the NCEA as a system that would seem in time with pastoral help from the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority with regard to the workload and to teachers to be a worthy successor to what we knew as School Certificate Sixth Form Certificate and the bursary exam. In fact at this time in 2004 the Cambridge High School issue seems to indicate very seriously to the Minister and his officials that issues need to be re-examined. Namely the issue is whether NCEA an amalgamation of achievement standards and unit standards is a system that has real validity for the future. At present I believe that the jury is long out on whether it has. 
I understand the reasons this was done and I want to quickly traverse the fact that the industry training organisations set up under the New Zealand Qualifications Authority did a very worthy job all through the 1990s of developing work-worthy credits for their industries. One of the issues that has developed under NCEA is that the huge body of work done by the industry training organisations all through the 1990s is now at risk. 
The last thing I want to say about this is in regard to Cambridge High School or any other college—and I believe that others will be found somehow wanting under the recent developments and I will come back to that in a second with regard to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority—is that unit standards were a worthy achievement in regard to the various trades industries that had developed them. I know of schools where in regard to agriculture carpentry industrial design and hospitality they were and are still today the best method for students to be able to achieve something worthwhile and creditable. 
By the way although questions were asked about this matter all through the 1990s the answers were not forthcoming. The forced amalgamation into an achievement standard design has not been one that is worthy. New Zealand First believes that the Minister must address this issue now. The Minister must not take into account the recent comments being made by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority which is attempting to go from not doing its job in regard to monitoring and analysing what is happening in regard to accreditation but somehow in recent statements including one made last Monday it is stepping over the boundary into trying to tell schools how to teach the curriculum in the classroom. 
The authority’s task was to analyse and be quite certain on behalf of the taxpayer and not least on behalf of parents and children that the system they supported was creditable. The Cambridge High School issue has shown not that Cambridge High School was at fault but that the system was at fault and the Minister needs to address the matter in the education budget urgently.