National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill

I move, That the National Certificate in Educational Achievement Moratorium Bill be now read a first time. I propose to have this bill referred to the Education and Science Committee. The past year has been a roller coaster year for fifth form students who sat level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). It has been a roller coaster year for teachers of level 1. It has been a confusing year for parents, who cannot understand how the new exams work. It has been a stressful year for the first group of students who have gone through the system. They are the ones who have been on the back end of a mad scheme, set up by a small group of bureaucrats determined to cut down our academic tall poppies and level them all down to the lowest common denominator of mediocrity.

The NCEA moratorium bill is not a big bill. It does not say to do away with the NCEA. It does not say to turn back the clock and stop level 1 from proceeding. It does not even say for us to go back to School Certificate and Sixth Form Certificate. It is saying that we should stop for a minute and reflect on what is happening here, because there is no doubt that what is happening is a disgrace.

The Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), which represents 14,500 secondary school teachers, has resolved that level 3, which would replace bursary, should not go ahead before 2006 at the earliest. It is saying that schools and teachers need time to bed-in level 2, to get it right, to iron out the problems, and that schools should be given next year and 2005 to do that. It is also saying that there needs to be greater flexibility, and I agree with it. I predict that we will look back in 5 to 10 years’ time and rue the day that we let a fundamentally flawed exam system leach its way into the school system—leach its way into cutting down the tall poppies, taking away their incentive to excel.

The irony in all this is that it is not the future potential of the well-off, or those lucky enough to get into our top schools, that is at risk. The ones most at risk are those students in the poorest areas who have no choice but to go to a school where students have traditionally underachieved. Anyone who thinks that an employer or a university is going to think that NCEA qualifications gained at a decile 1A school, like Flaxmere College, or Tangaroa College, is the same as that gained at Havelock North High School or Samuel Marsden Collegiate School, for example, is being an optimistic Pollyanna. That is my view—an optimistic Pollyanna. Saying that the qualifications are the same does not make them so.

Let me make it quite clear: the students who will be most seriously disadvantaged from the NCEA, especially with this mix of internal and external exams, will be the very students whom the social engineers have tried to help—the ones who leave school without any qualifications other than unit standards. But employers are not going to look through all the paperwork to find out whether the paper was largely internally or externally assessed; they will look at the name of the school and jump to their own conclusions. That is exactly what will happen, and that is why students from decile 1A schools and the lower decile schools will be disadvantaged by NCEA in the long run.

The aim of this bill is very simple: it is just to provide a 1 or 2 year breathing space. We need some breathing space, because the implementation of the NCEA has been frantic, muddled, and confusing in this past year. I have to say that the Minister’s decision to delay the start of the NCEA until 2001 was a good decision, but even then the Education and Science Committee’s hearing last year into the implementation of level 1 of the NCEA uncovered a litany of problems—the sorts of problems that occur when the thinking behind the exams is wrong in the first place, and when the time and the resources simply were not set aside to ensure a smoother, less troubled first year. That is the problem with NCEA, I contend: it is the thinking behind it that is flawed.

My bill is a bit too late to do anything about level 2, which was pushed ahead this year, and I think I have made it pretty clear that while I am not a great supporter of the NCEA, I believe that we can yet avert a greater tragedy than the loss of School Certificate. Sixth Form Certificate has also gone, but many believe—and I am one of them—that it is not much of a loss at all.

However, bursary is another matter. Bursary is quite a different matter. Bursary is a gold-plated exam. It is gold-plated. Twenty years have gone into getting bursary to the point where it is today. It is now gold standard, and I cannot understand why we would want to tinker with it. Of course there are things we can do to improve it. Of course we can refine it. Of course there are many suggestions already on the table, suggestions from teachers that should have been followed years ago. Maybe now is the time to do it, but throwing the baby out with the bath water is, I believe, a retrograde step. At the end of the day, employers know bursary. Tertiary institutions know bursary. It is gold standard. It is internationally recognised, and I believe very strongly that we should keep it just as it is.

The advantage that my bill presents to us tonight is that it gives us an opportunity to evaluate where we are to date with NCEA in its totality, but best of all, it will give us the breathing space we need to make sure we do the right thing. Let us just take one example. Why can level 3 and bursary not coexist? There is no reason that level 3 and bursary cannot coexist—no reason at all. The Minister’s argument that there are not two teachers per subject good enough to be chief examiners is insulting to 14,500 secondary school teachers, and to every single senior subject teacher in this country. The Post Primary Teachers Association has called it a laughable excuse, and I agree with the association.

I could accept NCEA if there were credible research to support it, but there is none. There is no peer review or published research that shows the benefits and advantages of NCEA. A small pilot was held, yes, but no quantifiable outcomes were defined upfront, no analysis was undertaken, and no research reviewed and published. If the research had been done, I believe that the kinds of bungling and resource issues that were brought to light by the NCEA inquiry last year would never have happened. So when parents claim, as they have, that their children are guinea pigs in a giant experiment, they are quite right.

It gets worse. No plans are in place yet for a major evaluation to be undertaken or for a major research project to be even begun. The Minister and his bureaucrats have said to us that they will wait until the exams have been in place for a few years. By then it will be too late. Habits will be in force and loopholes found, and problems that are unacceptable now will no longer seem as bad. In my view, it is time to have a breathing space, and I commend this bill to the House.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the first reading of this member’s bill. The Government fundamentally opposes the bill. We are committed to the ongoing implementation and development of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), and I do not expect that to come as a surprise to anybody here in the House. I expect that the National Party will also be opposed to this, given that NCEA was developed by National in Government, and in fact would have been introduced a year earlier, had it continued to be the Government. We believe that to impose a moratorium would be to waste the time and the energy of teachers, students, and schools, as well as the money of the taxpayers of New Zealand. We actually do not need a moratorium. NCEA is here to stay. Level 1 has been successfully implemented, and that was one of the good things that we noticed with the exams: the level of problems with the exams was, I think, less than we normally have had with School Certificate. There have always been problems with the exam system, but in fact things went remarkably smoothly. Given the level of discussion beforehand, it was amazing how little complaint there actually was about the conduct of the exams.

NCEA replaces an outdated qualifications system with a system that is flexible, has clearly defined standards, and recognises what the students in our secondary schools can do, rather than what they cannot do. I do not think anybody in this House can get up and credibly argue for the retention of a School Certificate system that automatically failed 50 percent of students. I cannot see that anybody can argue that that is a system that is good for our students’ self-esteem, self-worth, or even their likelihood of employment or being able to carry on to tertiary education. NCEA is the product of over 15 years of deliberation by the profession, employers, and politicians, and as I said before, it was developed by the previous Government, which had intended to introduce it in 2001. It is interesting that educational professionals by and large are still absolutely committed to NCEA in principle, even though they complained about the problems there were with implementation.

I think it is time for ACT to move on and be positive about the opportunities that NCEA offers. It was really interesting on the select committee that, when we had just settled on having the inquiry and had not even seen the submissions, Deborah Coddington, as a new member, came along, replacing Donna Awatere Huata, and said that ACT would be putting in a minority report.

💬 Deborah Coddington: Not a chance!

We said it was usual to wait until—

💬 Deborah Coddington: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a new member and I seek your guidance on this, but if the member is reporting something I said to the select committee that is incorrect, is that acceptable?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is not a point of order, but I will ask the member who has the floor to come back to the bill, please.

The point that I—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am disappointed, Mr Speaker, that while Deborah Coddington was trying to raise her point of order, Helen Duncan stayed on her feet throughout, in a mark of disrespect to you. I ask that in future you just keep an eye on that, because I believe it is out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Thank you, Mr Jones. I take that on board.

As I said, the whole point is that it is usual to get the submissions in, listen to them, and then make a decision about whether a minority report is needed. It did indicate to us that the mind of the ACT party was made up before the inquiry had even got under way. But in fact I do hope that the ACT party will, for the good of the students of New Zealand, support the continuation of NCEA. There were some problems with its introduction, but that is not unusual. Some of us in our investigation looked back at what had happened when School Certificate was first introduced, and the problems there were then.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: We can’t look back that far. We weren’t even born then.

We looked back at evidence about it. We know also that in the education system, whenever there is change there is upheaval, because teaching is inherently a stressful occupation, and when we add in change, particularly the level of change that came with NCEA, of course it puts stress on the system and on the people involved in it. Because there was, last year, a considerable amount of industrial unrest, that added to the stress. But we have, as a Government, committed resources to assist with the ongoing implementation of NCEA. The Government has looked carefully at the recommendations that came from the select committee and is indeed committed to ensuring that there is a smoother transition to the new NCEA system in the next 2 years.

More training for levels 2 and 3 has been made available this year, and will be made available next year. We will review NCEA before the end of 2005, and the Government will listen to the views of education stakeholders at that time. But this bill provides a moratorium of 2 years, and I cannot see that this will be of any use to anyone. It is simply going to delay the implementation and cause more stress. It would not affect the continuation of NCEA for fifth form students, but simply put a hold on things and stop the smooth progression.

As I said, the select committee listened very carefully to the submissions from a large number of people who were involved. t was really interesting that, although they saw problems with the implementation process, they had no quarrel with the actual system. In fact, every single submitter was clear that the NCEA was an improvement on the system that was there before; that it was going to be better for education and for students, and they commended the system to the Education and Science Committee. Yes, there were problems with resourcing, training, communication with the ministry—all those sorts of things. I am not trying to play down the issues that were very rightfully raised with us on the inquiry into the implementation of the NCEA, but, in spite of that, the net result was that everybody said: “It is a good system. It just needs to have the implementation improved.”

As I said, the select committee made some recommendations to the Government, and we as a Government are taking them to heart. But the committee also wrote in its report: “It is to be noted that the three key education stakeholders affirm their belief in the NCEA and ask only that lessons are learned from its implementation in 2002 and that the requisite resourcing is provided for its ongoing development and delivery.” That is the final conclusion of the report from the select committee inquiry into the NCEA. Therefore, I ask members to listen to that and to vote against this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The remaining speeches are 5 minutes.

We know how far away the Government is from reality when we hear a speech on a key issue such as this from that member. I nearly choked when Helen Duncan told us that the National Certificate of National Achievement (NCEA) had been successfully implemented. Where was she when we heard submission after submission at the Education and Science Committee? The Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand said it was one of the worst examples of poor change-management that it had ever experienced in its existence. The School Trustees Association said it was a hopeless implementation; so too did those good union mates of the Labour Government—the Post Primary Teachers Association. All of them said it was a failure, and I just ask that member to connect with reality and admit that the NCEA has been one bureaucratic botch-up after another.

I also have to say to the member who just spoke, how can members opposite go around this country and give speeches about the importance of free education—one of Labour’s heartfelt founding principles—and then put up the fees for sixth form students this year from $25 to $150? That is a sixfold increase. When did Labour say that to the electorate last year? When we were in Government we increased the fees by 6 percent, and we were told by Labour that this was a threat to the principle of free education—despite the fact that it was less than the rate of inflation. Now, Labour has increased the fees by 600 percent, and it expects parents to be silent. National says: “Not good enough.”

In respect of the NCEA, it is time Labour fronted up and told the public honestly what changes it has made since it became the Government. Because the NCEA we have in schools today is not the NCEA that was ticked off by National in Government in 1998. There are two key changes that this Government does not want to talk about. The first of those is the Cabinet paper signed off by National, which said: “Let’s give students a mark out of 100; let’s tell students how good they are, or how not-good they are; let’s not put students into these crude bands, where we don’t care whether they got 66 percent or 99 percent.” Because 66 percent is not the same as 99 percent.

The second politically correct manoeuvre from this Government is that the record of learning, to be held by the Qualifications Authority, is no longer to record failure. Is that not just another dose of Labour political correctness? We are not allowed to mention this word “failure”, when it comes to education. We have this politically correct dishonesty, and members on this side of the House say: “Not good enough.” But members on this side of the House are committed to a qualifications reform. We are, we were in Government, and we still are. We say that we want a standards-based system, and we say we want a system that is committed to external examination.

That brings me to this bill, and I have to say to the ACT party that this puts a freeze on Sixth Form Certificate. This House has to front up and say that Sixth Form Certificate is the worst of our school qualifications. There is no external exam. We in the National Party believe in external exams. So why would we want to keep the Sixth Form Certificate? It has no external examination. In Government we were proud to move on from that, and we still say that Sixth Form Certificate is not an appropriate qualification, and we can do better. National says we are committed to a standards-based assessment and we are committed to external examinations.

We also want to be constructive, and I have to ask this question: this bill would freeze Sixth Form Certificate into this school year 2003. We are 6 weeks into the school year, I have to say to the ACT party. How fair is it to our 50,000 sixth form students, who are in the middle of starting—

💬 Jill Pettis: 80,000.

That is not correct. I say to the member opposite: “Get your numbers right!”. There are 50,000 students in sixth form, not 80,000. We know that the Labour Party is no good at maths, and she proves so again. I say to the House, how fair is it to those 50,000 students who are 6 weeks into an NCEA programme, to change the rules suddenly? I say it is not fair. That is why National says we welcome the debate on the bill but we cannot support it in the form that it is before this Parliament.

JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui): I am pleased to contribute to this debate and to indicate, as my colleague Helen Duncan has, that Labour will not be supporting this bill. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a success. I do not say that lightly, and that is backed up by numerous newspaper reports, which I read with a great deal of interest during the January period, because I was taking a particular interest in this issue. Comments have been made that the NCEA has been terribly disruptive to the schools: that the schools themselves, and the principals and senior teachers involved in the implementation of the NCEA, are not supportive of it. I completely refute those claims.

I am very pleased to say that I have a press clipping from the New Plymouth Daily News dated 14 January, in which a very, very good principal, Josephine Mikaere from Okato College is quoted as saying: “the spade work was really done when level one came in. Implementing level one was huge, but I think it was timely. The world is changing and our needs have changed, and so have opportunities for students”. I know Mrs Mikaere well. I know what a good-quality teacher she is; she taught my daughter when my daughter was at school. So I know that that is a very experienced senior teacher making those comments. Okato College itself voted to go ahead with level 2, and that school is representative of many secondary schools throughout New Zealand.

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the NCEA was not introduced on a whim. Fifteen years of intensive deliberation took place between the teaching profession and the whole school community. As has been said, National itself developed the NCEA. Tragically, National underfunded the NCEA, and when Labour became the Government it increased that funding by several million dollars. There are 80,000 students in the sixth and seventh forms today—far, far too many young people for National to be playing petty party politics with, when their education is at stake. We want our best and brightest young people—and so many of them are our best and brightest—to be able to go forward in their educational advancement with some surety and security. We do not need to muck them around any more, as we try to implement the best possible form of an educational system for them. I do not say this lightly: those young people are our future. We do need to protect them, and we need to make sure that we have a system in place that will be in their best interests.

Let us dispose of this bill quickly, because we need our teaching profession and our young people to be able to go forward with confidence and with security.

I first have to comment on the statement made by Helen Duncan that we looked back to the introduction of School Certificate—that certainly must date her, because School Certificate was introduced in the 1930s—and to the statement by National’s education spokesperson, the Hon Nick Smith, that National believes very strongly in examination at the sixth form level. The question has to be asked as to why, for 9 years, National left in place an internally assessed Sixth Form Certificate, if it believed so strongly in examinations.

If this bill provided for a moratorium on the increase of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) fees, New Zealand First would vote for it, because the comments that were made by Dr Nick Smith are absolutely correct. The worst feature about the implementation of the NCEA has been the horrendous increase in fees, locking out the very students whom the NCEA was designed to accommodate. The members on the Government side of the House need to hang their heads in shame on that one.

However, this particular bill, to put it bluntly, is a nonsense. The horse has bolted. Level 2 of the NCEA has already commenced; it is well under way. This bill is simply an ACT gimmick. I draw members’ attention to its introduction date: 5 December 2002. How did ACT ever believe that it could get this bill through the parliamentary process before the end, at the very best, of the year 2003, when level 2 of the NCEA will have been in action for a whole year? Are we then to stop it after that year and go back to Sixth Form Certificate, for which we will have no grades to base it upon? This bill is simply an ACT gimmick. It should be noted, in fact, that only 14 schools out of 336 are not doing level 2 of the NCEA, even though they have the option of doing transitional Sixth Form Certificate—only 14 out of 336 schools. It is those 14 schools, and the people who surround them that, in fact, ACT is trying to curry favour with.

But there is an exquisite irony in the situation that we find ourselves in. It is pretty obvious that Donna Awatere Huata is passionate about this bill, and it is also pretty obvious that ACT is totally opposed to the continued implementation of the NCEA. I want to know—and I will certainly be listening to hear this—how many votes ACT will actually cast. Will ACT cast its full complement of votes, to record both Donna Awatere Huata’s opposition to the NCEA and the full ACT caucus’ opposition to it?

If ACT does not cast the nine votes that its whip carries, that will demonstrate that the only reason ACT is hanging on to Donna Awatere Huata is to have the $110,000 per annum that it is able to achieve by doing so. ACT can demonstrate how much integrity it has by the number of votes it casts, because ACT holds Donna Awatere Huata’s vote in its whip’s hand.

The Minister, Mr Mallard, delayed level 1 of the NCEA for one year, and there were still tremendous implementation problems. No one can deny that there were serious implementation problems and serious underfunding. There are still serious implementation problems that have to be overcome. But it is interesting to note that England has announced that it will throw out the A levels and O levels, and will introduce a system almost the same as the NCEA. I also point out that the conceptualisation and design of the NCEA was not National’s. It came about through the National - New Zealand First coalition. New Zealand First is proud of its involvement in the NCEA, because we believe that in the next couple of years people will understand the full, profound, and positive effect that the NCEA will have on our education system. We certainly do not pull away from it; as I say, we are very proud of it.

The system that existed prior to the introduction of the NCEA was far, far worse than the NCEA. People talk about percentages. Let me tell members that virtually no one understood what a percentage in School Certificate actually was.

I rise to express United Future’s opposition to this bill. No one, not even the Minister, could deny that there have been some problems with the realisation and the implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). I am hopeful that the Minister will take the findings that we have given him on board. However, our review was not intended to inquire about the efficacy of the NCEA as a qualification. There can be no doubt that School Certificate and Sixth Form Certificate have, as others have expressed tonight, become outmoded. The NCEA does give students, parents, and employers much more information about the skills students have acquired than before.

There are still many bugs to iron out, but should we really do what the bill suggests and delay the implementation of level 2 of the NCEA for another 2 years? After previous delays to level 1 and a decision to make level 2 optional this year, schools, and even teachers, have decided that it is better just to get on with it and to try to make the system work as it is. The staggered take-ups have been disruptive to students. The current senior school year groups will potentially hold an array of different qualifications over different years for different subjects. I ask why we should prolong that instability for twice the number of students over an even longer period. A better option would be to review and revise levels 1 and 2 as schools work through them.

In the case of level 3, though, United Future believes we have a brief window of opportunity for scrutiny before it is introduced. Our concern is that level 3 must balance the consistency of skill-based education against the need to ensure a rigorous entry-level standard for tertiary education. United Future wants to ensure that level 3 has real academic value and rigour. One approach is to favour an initiative to restore the potential for bursaries and scholarships to encourage excellence among our children. We think the introduction of level 3 is an excellent opportunity to change the very low value and esteem that is associated with bursaries and scholarships, by markedly increasing their value. That will depend on giving level 3 some grunt as we go through the process. Moreover, United Future would want to look at the possibility of making level 3 credits available towards tertiary education. That would also help students to borrow less and thus not to get as much into debt as they do now.

We take the very practical approach that it is better to accept that the NCEA is here to stay and to work towards making the best possible system for our children, rather than to throw out the baby with the bath water. United Future opposes this bill.

The kindest thing I can say about this bill is that it has missed the boat. The year 2003 has already started, and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 is under way. I should know that; my daughter is in the sixth form this year. Therefore, the moratorium is pointless and this bill is redundant. Indeed, it is counterproductive. The kindest thing I can say about the member is that I am sorry that the ACT party refuses to cast her vote in favour of her own bill, whilst still collecting all the entitlements that go with her presence in Parliament.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This debate is about the NCEA. The member, as have other members, is straying off the topic. I ask that you direct him back on to the subject.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that point. She is quite right. A number of members have drifted right off the bill.

I have actually almost finished, Mr Assistant Speaker. The NCEA is far from perfect, and I was surprised to hear a Government member claim that it was. The Government is on notice to address the deficiencies in the NCEA. As I mentioned earlier, one of my daughters is in the sixth form this year. That meant she was in the fifth form last year, and I was not impressed with either the implementation or the outcome of the first year of the NCEA. But imposing a moratorium on it is not the way to fix the problems. I hope that the Government does address them. We certainly will not be supporting this bill.

It had not been my intention to take a call in respect of this very important bill, but I would like to say on behalf of National members, in the context of opposing this legislation, that in terms of where Donna Awatere Huata stands and where National stands there are significant points in common. National stands for educational excellence. We do not see in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) structural frameworks anything that is reflective of that position.

The bill itself may be without merit. That is certainly the position that National has taken. But the underlying ethos of the bill, which is all about choice and a commitment to not dumbing down our system, is something that we passionately believe in. It is a source of sadness that a number of schools have chosen to desert the NCEA framework and, instead, to pursue other options in the context of achieving favourable outcomes for pupils at their respective schools. If I look at, for example, what has gone on in the schools in my electorate that have opted for non-NCEA options, I see it is readily apparent from schools of excellence like Auckland Grammar and other schools that there needs to be a commitment given to standards in education that stretch and challenge pupils to higher standards.

I simply say that in seeing the end of this bill we should all do so with a sense of sadness that we have been committed to a pathway that is consistent with dross and not with excellence.

I rise to support Donna Awatere Huata’s bill. I do not think it actually goes far enough. I think we should go further and allow schools that want to dump the National Certificate of Educational Achievement to do so. It is always such a delight to return to this House and find that the standard of debate is as high as ever, and that members are so concerned about standards of education that they use a debate about such an important thing as a national qualification for petty point-scoring, nasty bickering, and misrepresentation of other members. [Interruption] Yes, I did go to the Education and Science Committee; it was one of the first select committees—

💬 Darren Hughes: Once.

I am not on that committee; I was a substitute. It was one of the first select committees I went to, and I did say that I would be putting in a minority report—I did not say that it would be a negative report—and they all had a good cackle at my expense. I hope it made them feel very proud of themselves that they were so helpful to a new member. But I suppose that that is just typical of the cackling crones in this House.

I find it appalling that members who were considerably advantaged by national examinations like School Certificate and bursary are now forcing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) on to New Zealand youngsters. It is what a leading secondary school principal in New Zealand, John Morris, has called the most dangerous experiment ever foisted on to New Zealand’s children. The NCEA—the name just about sums it up. It is just an “achievement”, but the Minister calls it a triumph.

I wonder whether any of those members who speak so knowledgeably about it have read this article by Warwick Elley, an emeritus professor of education, who is writing in the latest Education Review. He writes that the assessment system does not pass, and that our students deserve better. Now Warwick Elley is not some right-wing ideologue. He is not even political about this issue, and, as I said, this is an issue that is above politics. But he writes that, despite the Minister being pleased with the first NCEA results, “a cursory glance at the summary statistics is enough to show how arbitrary and basically incredible the whole system is.” In that article, which I think every member of this House who is interested in education should read, Warwick Elley systematically sets out exactly why the NCEA is a shoddy, sub-standard, subjective non-qualification.

All this bill is trying to do is delay implementing the NCEA. Yes, it possibly is a bit late for level 2, but what about level 3? I notice that none of those people who use that excuse to oppose the bill bothered to pass an amendment to draw it out further. All this bill is saying is that we should proceed with caution. There is no need to rush this qualification on to secondary schools one year after the other, because that is dangerous. It forces level 2 and level 3 on to the same students who sat level 1. Those students are being used as guinea pigs, and they will leave school not with School Certificate, or Sixth Form Certificate, or even bursary, but a smorgasbord of nebulous qualifications that look like this sheet. Nobody can make head or tail of this record. There are no percentages. There is no clear direction to students, to employers, or to parents, of how well the students did. It just describes what they did: “interpret historical sources”, or “estimate and determine probabilities”.

Helen Duncan says there has been very little complaint about the NCEA. Well, she should have come to the ACT select committee inquiry that we took around the country. We heard from people like Martin Cooney, the ex-Post Primary Teachers Association president, who damned this qualification as a social engineering experiment foisted on to New Zealand children by the left-wing ideologues in the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. [Interruption] That was from one of Labour’s guys—not from one of ours. Byron Bentley, the principal of Macleans College in Auckland, calls it the biggest fraud perpetrated on New Zealand schools. A teacher at Macleans College said that the NCEA was like a new drug being dumped on the market with no trials and no peer reviews.

I am delighted to rise and reinforce the Labour Party’s opposition to this bill.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.