4. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
: Kei te tautoko a ia i tā Ngā Kura-ā-Iwi o Aotearoa kōrero e pā ana ki ngā mānukanuka mō ngā whakamātautau Reo Māori “E hē ana te pūnaha takirua e hoatu nei i te mana ōrite ki te ākonga whai reo Māori, ahakoa ko tōna reo taketake, ko tōna reo tuarua rānei tana reo Māori”; arā ka aha ia ki te whakatika i tēnei “hē kino”?
[Does she agree with Ngā Kura ā Iwi o Aotearoa’s concerns about te reo Māori exams that “A double standard prevails, one for te reo Māori pathway pupils for whom English is their first language and another for te reo rangatira pathway pupils for whom Māori is their first language”; and what actions will she take to correct what they suggest is a “horrendous wrong”?]
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) Link to this
I have seen Mr Bird’s claims, which he released on Tuesday, and I have asked the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for some advice on the claims that he makes. Until I have this advice, it would be premature to comment on the validity of his claims and any actions that would be taken.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
He aha te whakamaherehere kua whiwhi i a ia mai i ngā rōpu mātanga o te reo rangatira pērā i a Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, mō te whakapae a Ngā Kura ā-Iwi, nā te whakamātautau National Certificate of Educational Achievement o Te Reo Māori a New Zealand Qualifications Authority i takahi te mana o Te Reo Māori?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[What advice has she received from Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori and any other specialist advisers in te reo rangatira about the claims from Ngā Kura-ā-Iwi that the mana of te reo Māori has been seriously undermined by the New Zealand Qualification Authority’s treatment of National Certificate of Educational Achievement te reo Māori?]
I have not received advice from the Māori Language Commission on this matter. As I have said, I have asked the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for some advice on the claims that Mr Bird makes. Until I have this advice, it would be premature to comment on the validity of his claims or any actions that would be taken.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the responses from the Minister, the Māori Party has one supplementary question in hand and unfortunately they all go to the same issue in respect of the ability of the Minister to answer the question. I seek leave of the House that one supplementary question be available to us in question time on Tuesday of next week in which to follow up on these issues, if that is OK.
Mr SPEAKERLeave is sought to have a supplementary question availability today deferred until next Tuesday. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
He aha te pūtake o tā Bali Haque kōrero, kia rua ngā momo whakamātautau mō Te Reo Māori. Nā, mēnā kei te pērā, kei te whakaae atu ia ki te whakapae, “he nui noa atu te mana” o Te Reo Pākehā ki tērā o Te Reo Māori?
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
[What is the rationale that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority deputy chief executive, Bali Haque, refers to when justifying the need for two sets of exams, and would she not agree that pitching the exams at the “lowest common denominator” in fact devalues the more sophisticated understanding required of students taking up the te reo rangatira pathway?]
As I said to the member, I have asked for some advice and I am sure that that advice will cover the rationale for the current situation. Once I have received that advice, I will be very happy to discuss the issue with the member.
Kelvin DavisDoes the Minister agree that a double standard also prevails in that the national standards for Māori immersion schools are not due out until 3 years after the mainstream national standards, creating an anomaly and uncertainty for Māori immersion classes in mainstream schools?
If, over the next 3 years, achievement in Māori immersion schools without national standards keeps pace with or exceeds the achievement of mainstream schools that have national standards, will the Minister be prepared to concede that national standards were unsuccessful?
I accept that the question was hypothetical, but hypothetical questions are within the Standing Orders and the answer did not bear any relationship at all to the question asked. For certainty, I invite Kelvin Davis to repeat his question.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question asked about the way in which the New Zealand Qualifications Authority treats Māori language examinations or tests. It has nothing to do, in this case, with the specific content of the question asked by Kelvin Davis. I think the Minister’s answer has to be reasonable in that circumstance.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I accept the point Mr Brownlee makes, except that the previous supplementary question asked by Mr Davis did link the primary question with the issue of national standards in Māori medium schools. His second supplementary question, following on from the Minister’s earlier answer, is a continuation of that line of questioning. I think he has followed a logical order. There was no politics in what he said. He has followed a logical order about the standards in schools and what that means with regard to examinations for Māori students who are taught in te reo.
Hekia ParataI think you will find, Mr Speaker, that the second supplementary question asked by the member was prefaced on the possibility that the national standards would not be in place in Māori medium schools. The Minister replied that they would be. Therefore, it logically follows that the question should not be answered.
OK, I have allowed considerable contribution by way of point of order because what I was about to rule was challenged. I must say, having listened to the points made, that I will accept that it was obviously very much questionable whether the supplementary question relates directly to the primary question, and given the Minister’s answer that she disputed the assertion in the member’s first question that the standards would not be in place, then I guess I cannot expect the Minister to give a precise answer to the second question, because she has already disputed the point made in the first supplementary question. On that basis I think I do have to accept that the Minister has responded adequately to the question.