Mid Term Review of NZ's Pasifika Education Plan 2009-2012

03 August 2011

Proposal 

1.          This paper sets out the key findings of a mid-term review of the Pasifika Education Plan 2009-2012 [SOC Min (09) 20/1 refers]. I outline the next steps to be taken to accelerate progress and seek Cabinet agreement to future areas of focus, which will form the basis of a new plan to be developed in 2012.

Executive Summary

2.          The Ministry of Education (the Ministry) has developed Pasifika Education Plans over the past 10 years to ensure a strong and continued focus on improving educational results for Pasifika children, students and young people. In 2009, Cabinet approved the Pasifika Education Plan 2009-2012 (Plan) which was revised to align with Government’s education priorities for Pasifika students, which are to:

a.      build strong learning foundations

b.      lift Pasifika literacy and numeracy achievement

c.      increase the number of Pasifika students achieving and leaving school with qualifications.

3.          A mid-term review of the current Plan, for the period November 2009 through to May 2011, shows that two thirds of the targets set for 2012 are likely to be met.  Also of note:

·         Pasifika participation in Early Childhood Education (ECE) has improved by 9.5% since 2009 and 24.9% since 2006 (largest increase compared to all ethnicities other than Asian)

·         the number of Pasifika students leaving with NCEA Level 2 qualifications has increased from 45% to 66% between 2005 and 2009[1]

·         Pasifika students stay at school longer than all other groups (except Asian students)

·         Pasifika students’ take-up of Youth Guarantee is 20% of all young people participating.

4.          Further action is required to address a number of areas:

·         although Pasifika participation in ECE has increased more than any other ethnic group other than Asian, it is still the lowest participation rate

·         significant disparities remain evident in literacy and numeracy achievement for Pasifika students at age 10

·         the South Auckland attendance pilot identified that attendance levels of Pasifika students between the ages of 5-7 is a concern

·         disparity in achievement levels between Pasifika and non-Pasifika students widen at higher qualification levels, restricting opportunities for Pasifika students to move into higher levels of education and compete for the best employment opportunities.

5.          Actions are underway to accelerate improvement during the course of the current Plan. To ensure future success, I propose the next Pasifika Education Plan:

·         set more ambitious targets informed by in-depth investigation, discussion, and comparative analysis about Pasifika and non-Pasifika achievement

·         include further actions to drive continued improvement in literacy and numeracy achievement, and attainment of qualifications

·         focus on attendance as a foundation for engagement in learning and achievement

·         emphasise the importance of Pasifika identities, languages and cultures and working closely with Pasifika parents and families

·         incorporate the full implementation of Youth Guarantee

·         focus on skills essential to the future New Zealand workforce.

Background

6.          Persistent low level skills present a significant challenge to the well-being of Pasifika communities and wider New Zealand.  By 2021, Pasifika people will represent 12% of the younger age workforce in New Zealand, and an even higher proportion of the workforce in Auckland.

7.          In 2009, Cabinet approved a revised Pasifika Education Plan 2009-2012, to focus the education sector on the Government’s education priorities for Pasifika students, which are to:

·           build strong learning foundations

·           lift Pasifika literacy and numeracy achievement

·           increase the number of Pasifika students achieving and leaving school with qualifications.

8.          The Ministry of Education has overall responsibility for the Plan, which is supported by other agencies.

What has been achieved so far?

9.          Since 2007, there has been progress against the majority of targets set out in the Plan, and it is likely that all the targets will be reached by 2012 (except for average age of early intervention, suspension and expulsion rates, Pasifika boards of trustee representation and five year completion rates for tertiary).  The diagram below uses available data to illustrate progress made toward the Plan’s 2012 targets.

Early Childhood Education

10.       During the course of the current Plan there has been a clear focus on increasing Pasifika children’s participation in quality ECE. The latest data shows that participation has increased more for Pasifika children than for all other ethnic groups except Asian, but is still the lowest rate of participation in ECE by a substantial margin. 

11.       Actions underway to increase Pasifika children’s participation in quality ECE include:

·           funding new ECE participation projects in Northland, Auckland and Waikato (areas with the highest numbers of non-participating children)

·           evaluating and reporting on ECE services’ practices for Pasifika children and their families (conducted by the Education Review Office)

·           revising scholarships to better target people with skills and knowledge in Pasifika cultures and languages to lift the proportion of Pasifika applicants for the 2011 scholarship round (by 150%) and improve the overall quality of ECE experiences for Pasifika children.

12.       It will be important to build on participation gains by taking action to ensure greater success for Pasifika children in the early years of primary schooling.

Compulsory Education

13.       Actions to achieve compulsory schooling targets have focused on improving Pasifika students’ participation and engagement, achievement in literacy and numeracy, ensuring teacher effectiveness, and lifting achievement of senior secondary level qualifications.

14.       Activities specific to progressing literacy and numeracy achievement include:

a.      implementing National Standards to help schools understand where Pasifika students are at; to identify strategies needed to ensure progress; and provide support for teachers and Pasifika families to communicate better about student achievement

b.      scaling up the Reading Recovery and Reading Together programmes across all Decile 1-3 schools and schools with the highest numbers of Pasifika students

c.      piloting an exploratory study in 2010, Achieving Literacy in Mathematics, involving 250 students from 39 schools – the study investigated how to accelerate the learning of students at risk of underachieving in mathematics and found that short term, structured, and targeted programmes (6-10 weeks) delivered in small groups (two to six children) by effective teachers can accelerate most underachieving students’ achievement by 1-2 years.^[2]

15.       Other actions taken this year have included refocusing and better targeting professional learning and development for teachers, to ensure they are equipped to respond to the needs of Pasifika students, and implementing the new Student Achievement Function to support school leaders and disseminate good practice.

16.       There are many schools demonstrating positive gains for Pasifika students since the launch of the current Plan in November 2009. An example is Flaxmere College, which committed to the objectives of the Plan and has since reported that their Pasifika students are the highest achieving cohort for both NCEA Level 1 and 2 (in 2010).  Central to this achievement has been setting high expectations and providing responsive leadership and teaching. A key contributor is teachers valuing the cultural backgrounds of their students. 

17.       To increase the understanding of Pasifika issues at the school board level, the Ministry has worked with the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs (MPIA) and the New Zealand School Trustees Association (NZSTA) to encourage more Pasifika people to stand for board elections. This has resulted in an increase in Pasifika representation from 29.7% in 2009, to 33.3% in 2010. 

18.       Annual monitoring of the Plan has shown that the rate of achievement of senior secondary qualifications has improved for Pasifika students, but remains low when compared to the rate for other students.

Tertiary Education

19.       The focus in tertiary education has been on increasing participation, retention and completions, and lifting the rate of Pasifika students moving into higher levels of qualifications and further education. 

20.       From 2008 to 2009, the proportion of Pasifika under 25 year old students studying qualifications at level 4 and above, increased from 69% to 70% in terms of equivalent full time student units.  The comparable figures for all domestic students were 82% in 2008 and 83% in 2009.

21.       These increases are a combination of the Government’s tertiary education priority for more under-25-year-olds achieving qualifications at level 4 and above, the weak employment market and demographic changes[3].

22.       Initiatives underway specifically to support tertiary targets are part of Youth Guarantee such as the development of vocational pathways towards NCEA Level 2 in a secondary school or tertiary setting, and Trades Academies.

23.       To increase the focus on retention and completion of qualifications, and progression to further and higher levels of tertiary education, the Tertiary Education Commission has also negotiated Investment Plan commitments with Tertiary Education Organisations that outline how they will improve achievement and the performance of learners in priority groups, such as Pasifika students. The tertiary education sector’s progress will be judged on such improvements.

Priorities for the duration of the current Plan

24.       For the remaining 18 months of the Plan the focus will be on surpassing current targets. Key actions are outlined below:

Participation in Quality ECE

25.       The Ministry is planning to establish additional ECE participation projects in target areas in Northland, Auckland and the Waikato in 2012, building on results gained from the Counties Manukau Participation Project and the Tamaki Transformation Programme.

26.       More integrated services for families will be trialled and developed by the Ministry with other agencies in communities with high Pasifika populations.  Pasifika Early Childhood Playgroups are to have increased teaching and learning support. Parent mentoring groups will also be trialed in Pasifika communities, with an emphasis on improving parents’ literacy and numeracy skills. 

27.       The Ministry has received positive feedback on a parenting programme, the Incredible Years, within a Pasifika context.  Further work is being done to increase Pasifika participation with a focus on the Auckland region.  The results will be monitored to inform future work. 

Literacy and Numeracy Achievement

28.       A key priority is substantially improving literacy and numeracy results for Pasifika by reviewing achievement against National Standards and closely monitoring all other indicators. Working to improve achievement levels for Pasifika students is a key focus of Student Achievement Practitioners now working with schools.

29.       The Ministry is piloting a new long term approach to improving student attendance as a foundation for engagement in learning and achievement in South Auckland and Gisborne/East Coast where there are high numbers of Pasifika students.

Pasifika Medium Education

30.       A focus on improving cultural responsiveness will now be included in Professional Learning and Development contracts. This will ensure this significant investment equips teachers to meet the needs of priority groups of students. For both Māori students and Pasifika students a key focus is ensuring teachers understand the importance and impact of identities, languages and cultures on student achievement. 

Pasifika students achieving qualifications at level 4 and above

31.       The focus in tertiary education will continue to be on providers’ alignment with the Plan’s goal of increasing the number of Pasifika students achieving at higher levels, as reflected in the priorities and expectations of the Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015. This includes working with agencies to lift the literacy and numeracy skills of Pasifika workers through interagency initiatives.

32.       The implementation of Youth Guarantee to support better education and career choices will continue in 2011 and 2012, including the implementation of Trades and Service Academies, and the Tertiary High School at the Manukau Institute of Technology.

The Next Pasifika Education Plan

33.       The next Pasifika Education Plan will aim to stretch the system to perform better and faster, and achieve sustainable and continuous improvement. The Plan will:

·             set more ambitious targets, informed by in-depth investigation, discussion, and comparative analysis about Pasifika and non-Pasifika achievement

·             include further actions to drive continued improvement in literacy and numeracy achievement, and attainment of qualifications

·             focus on improving attendance as a foundation for engagement in learning and achievement

·             emphasise the importance of Pasifika identities, languages and cultures and working closely with Pasifika parents and families

·             incorporate the full implementation of Youth Guarantee

·             focus on skills essential to the future New Zealand workforce.

34.       Development of the Plan will be informed by research and monitoring activities, to ensure it is informed by the best evidence of what works to improve results and accelerate progress.

35.       The Ministry will continue to lead work with MPIA and Pasifika academics to produce a coordinated national plan for research that will further build the Pasifika education evidence base. This will be complemented by the Ministry’s Best Evidence Synthesis (BES) which is advancing a report focused on effective teaching in literacy, with a focus on Pasifika students.  The BES Programme is also preparing a case study for schools to demonstrate what works in Pasifika bilingual education settings. 

36.       The Plan will be supported by close interagency collaboration.  I have asked the Ministry to strengthen its lead on education interagency work to ensure alignment of strategies and initiatives, and I expect ongoing close engagement with key agencies leading complementary work, such as the Department of Labour-led Hi-Tech Jobs Partnership programme, Maori and Pacific futures (years 7-8 students) pilot, Pacific Pipeline pilot and schools business partnership.

Consultation

37.       The Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, Education Review Office, Tertiary Education Commission, New Zealand Qualifications Authority, Careers New Zealand and Teachers’ Council have been engaged on this work. The Department of Labour and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have had the opportunity to comment on this paper.  The paper has been provided to Treasury, State Services Commission, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ministry of Social Development, Human Rights Commission, and Ministries of Women’s Affairs, Youth Development, Health and Justice for information.

Financial Implications 

38.       The Plan is funded within baseline by the Ministry of Education and partner agencies. 

 

Human Rights Implications  

39.       The Plan is primarily about improving the performance of the education system for one of the most underserved groups: Pasifika students. Successfully implemented, it will enable Pasifika students to achieve more equitable education results in relation to the rest of the New Zealand population.

 

Legislative Implications

40.       There are no legislative implications associated with this paper.

 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

41.       There is no specific regulatory impact associated with this paper.

 

Gender Implications

41.     The data shows that Pasifika boys are not performing as well as Pasifika girls in education (though this gender difference is represented in other student results for other ethnicities as well). The focus on literacy achievement (where boys underperform compared with girls overall) and culturally responsive teaching can be expected to positively impact on boys’ educational achievement to reduce the current disparity.

 

Disability Perspective   

42.       The Plan supports the New Zealand Disability Strategy through its focus on early identification of special needs.

          Publicity  

43.       Ongoing communications and engagement to support more effective teaching and learning for Pasifika students will focus on three main groups:

·             internal Ministry of Education and Government audiences

·             the sector – specifically teachers, principals and other educators

·             Pasifika communities.

Recommendations

44.       The Minister of Education recommends that the Committee:

a.         note that this report sets out the key findings of a mid-term review of the Pasifika Education Plan 2009-2012 [refer SOC Min (09) 20/1] and actions that will be taken to accelerate improvements

b.         note that progress for Pasifika students is evident in:

·           increased participation in ECE

·           improved attainment of NCEA Level 2

·           ongoing good retention levels

·           high take-up of Youth Guarantee

c.         note that further action is required to:

·           build on and accelerate participation in ECE

·           further reduce disparities in literacy and numeracy achievement

·           support Pasifika students to go on and succeed at higher levels of education       

d.         note that the current range of policies and programmes that will contribute to improved results for Pasifika students include:

·           increasing Pasifika children’s access to Reading Recovery and Reading Together in all Decile 1-3 schools

·           a new long term approach to improving student attendance as a foundation for engagement in learning and achievement in South Auckland and Gisborne/East Coast where there are high numbers of Pasifika students

·           increasing the Accelerated Learning in Mathematics pilot and evaluation (which showed positive results for Pasifika students in a small trial in 2010)

·           refocusing teacher Professional Learning and Development services to lift cultural responsiveness and ensure teachers are better equipped to respond to the needs of Pasifika children and students, and other key priority groups

·           placing Student Achievement Practitioners in schools to support school leaders and disseminate good practice

·           implementation of National Standards

·           offering new career choice projects, which include a focus on Pasifika students and families

·           increasing the number of Youth Guarantee places to support Pasifika young peoples’  transition into further education and work

e.         agree that future priorities for a new Plan designed to enhance Pasifika education success will:

·           set more ambitious targets, informed by in-depth investigation, discussion, and comparative analysis about Pasifika and non-Pasifika achievement

·           include further actions to drive continued improvement in literacy and numeracy achievement, and attainment of qualifications

·           focus on attendance as a foundation for engagement in learning and achievement

·           emphasise the importance of Pasifika identities, languages and cultures and working closely with Pasifika parents and families

·           incorporate the full implementation of Youth Guarantee

·           focus on skills essential to the future New Zealand workforce

CLICK HERE FOR A COPY OF THE REPORT

---

[1] 2010 NCEA ethnicity comparative data at time of review not available

[2]    Case 1: Developing communities of mathematical inquiry. (Showcasing the work of Pasifika researcher, Dr Roberta Hunter).  On-line   from May 2011 http://educationcounts.govt.nz/goto/BES  In  Alton -Lee, A., Pulegatoa-Diggins, C., & Sinnema, C. (forthcoming ).  Quality Teaching for Diverse (All) Learners in Schooling: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES] He Ako Reikura, He Ākonga Rerekura (Te Katoa): Hei Kete Raukura [BES].

[3] The domestic Pasifika student population was younger in 2009 than New Zealand’s total domestic student population. Forty-nine percent of Pasifika students were aged under 25 years, compared to 43 percent of all domestic students. The situation was reversed for those aged 40 years and over. Twenty-eight percent of the total student population fell into this age group in 2009, while for Pasifika people this was only 19 percent

Pacific Islands Forum 40th Anniversary Leaders’ Lectures

Keynote Address by Honourable Meltek Sato Kilman Livtuvanu

Prime Minister of Vanuatu and

Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum

“Pacific Regionalism: Past, Present and Future”

Excellencies, Heads of States of the Pacific Islands Forum Countries

Excellencies, Heads of Government of the Pacific Islands Forum Countries

Excellencies, Ministers of the Pacific Islands Forum Countries

Excellencies, Members of Parliament of Pacific Islands Forum Countries

Excellencies, Representatives of the Diplomatic Corps

The Secretary General of Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

The Vice Chancellor of University of the South Pacific

Regional Directors of the CROP Agencies

Distinguished Participants; and

Fellow Families of the Pacific

On behalf of the Government and people of Vanuatu, I welcome you one and all. Bienvenue et je vous souhaite un agréable séjour dans nos belles îles de Vanuatu!

It is a great honour and privilege that I stand here today to deliver the first of a series of public addresses to mark the occasion of the Pacific Islands Forum 40th Anniversary focusing on the journey of the region in the last 40 years and the role of the Pacific Plan as a regional instrument to guide the delivery of our regional aspirations.

I take this opportunity to thank the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Rejesh Chandra, for agreeing to host this inaugural lecture.

The theme of my address today is therefore “Pacific Regionalism: Past, Present and Future”.

Background and History

Regionalism is a deeply engrained practice in the history of the Pacific. Prior to full scale European engagement with the region, our communities collaborated and travelled across the Pacific for a variety of reasons to settle in and explore other islands and to satisfy their curiosity as to what lay over the horizon.

Those early years of migration and expansionism across the Pacific have had a profound influence on the way that Pacific Islanders view themselves, their island homes, the region and the world more generally. Ours is a region linked by ocean – the largest body of water in the world. Pacific people recognize that this vast ocean, links us to one another and connects us in our common aspirations for a better more secure and prosperous region.

In more recent times we have recognized the natural advantages in our common heritage and the value that this collective strength offers us in meeting the economic, security, environmental and development challenges facing the region.

A good example of early regionalism was the establishment of the University of the South Pacific, a flagship institution for regional cooperation which has played a vital role in building a shared identity for the Pacific. Its establishment in 1968 demonstrated long-term thinking and a true commitment to regionalism.

The establishment of the South Pacific Forum in 1971 reflected the desire of Pacific leaders to deepen their engagement and discussion on political issues of significance to the newly independent states of the Pacific.

Key issues discussed at that first meeting held in Wellington in early August 1971 included regional trade, shipping, aviation, as well as nuclear testing. It was attended by the President of Nauru, the Prime Ministers of Western Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, the Premier of the Cook Islands, the Australian Minister for External Territories, and the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

In 1973, the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (SPEC) was established as the Secretariat to the Pacific Islands Forum. This reflected the bias towards economic cooperation, although issues such as de-colonisation and nuclear testing remained high on the agenda.

At the 1988 Leaders meeting in Tonga, Leaders endorsed a change in name from SPEC to the Forum Secretariat.

In 2000, the South Pacific Forum changed its name to the Pacific Islands Forum, reflecting its expanding membership. At the Auckland Forum in August 2003, Leaders agreed that there was a need to comprehensively review regionalism in the Pacific, including the role of the Secretariat and other regional agencies. This review was undertaken in early 2004 by an Eminent Persons Group, chaired by Sir Julius Chan – former Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and currently serving as Governor of New Ireland Province – and country representatives from other Forum Members Australia, Kiribati, Tonga and Samoa.

The report titled The Eminent Persons’ Group Review of the Pacific Islands Forum was presented to Leaders at a Special Leaders’ Retreat in Auckland in April 2004. It highlighted a number of key issues for the Forum, including this statement from the report:

“The Pacific is facing considerable challenges, both external and home-grown. Overcoming them will require concerted action, not only by national Governments but also at the regional level. Success will depend on the region having a clear vision of its future and a plan for getting there. This Review proposes both. The Vision acknowledges both Pacific traditions and 21st century realities. It involves a redefinition of the traditional “Pacific Way” of doing things. The plan – named here the Pacific Plan – is intended to build on the generally successful process of regional cooperation that has evolved during the past several decades.”

Leaders endorsed the report through the Auckland Declaration, and agreed amongst other priorities, to convene a Task Force to develop a Pacific Plan for the region.

Under the Auckland Declaration, Leaders adopted the following vision for the region:

“Leaders believe the Pacific region can, should and will be a region of peace, harmony, security and economic prosperity, so that all its people can lead free and worthwhile lives. We treasure the diversity of the Pacific and seek a future in which its cultures, traditions and religious beliefs are valued, honoured and developed. We seek a Pacific region that is respected for the quality of its governance, the sustainable management of its resources, the full observance of democratic values, and for its defence and promotion of human rights. We seek partnerships with our neighbours and beyond to develop our knowledge, to improve our communications and to ensure a sustainable economic existence for all.”

In 2004, a Pacific Islands Forum Task Force was established to develop the Pacific Plan. It held consultations with a wide range of state and non-state actors, including Governments, Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) agencies, development partners, and civil society representatives.

The Pacific Plan was endorsed by Leaders at their meeting in Port Moresby in 2005. The goal of the plan is to enhance and stimulate economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security for Pacific countries through regionalism.

The goal is supported by a number of objectives around four key pillars – economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security.

The Pacific Plan was endorsed in 2005 for a period of 10 years; and I note here that Leaders recognised that the Plan would have to change to reflect new priorities in the region and could remain in place beyond 2015.

Progressing our Pacific Plan

The Pacific Plan was envisaged by Pacific Leaders as a ‘living document’, meaning that it could be adjusted to reflect emerging priorities or the changed conditions for regionalism in the Pacific. In 2009, Leaders endorsed five themes centered around the key vulnerabilities of the region and related priorities to guide the implementation of the Plan over the period 2010 to 2012. The intention of Leaders was to provide a medium-term framework for the Pacific Plan so that efforts by national governments, development partners and donors, and CROP agencies could be re-focused on those priorities.

These themes are reflective of those endorsed by Leaders in 2005. However, Leaders recognized the emerging threat to the region posed by climate change and as a result climate change was identified in 2005 as a separate priority requiring the full attention of national governments, CROP agencies and development partners.

The implementation of the Pacific Plan is reviewed annually by the Pacific Plan Action Committee, comprising senior officials from the Members of the Forum, and Heads of CROP agencies. The Pacific Plan Action Committee continues to be the main regional policy body coordinating and monitoring the achievements of the Plan, and reports directly to Leaders. The Committee considers annual progress reports by the Secretariat on the implementation of the Pacific Plan.

What has the Pacific Plan achieved?

The Pacific Plan has provided a long-term vision for the Pacific, and ensured a medium-term framework for identifying priorities and tracking their progress. The Pacific Plan priorities, as identified by Leaders, provides a consistent set of initiatives to be implemented over 3-year periods, The Plan provides for Leaders a type of scorecard record of how the region is tracking against set goals and objectives.

CROP activities

It is also quite significant to note that the Pacific Plan continues to play a very important role in focusing the efforts of CROP agencies on the Leaders’ priorities, reinforced by our call for the implementation of the Regional Institutional Framework. Leaders recognized through the Pacific Plan the need for a re-shaping of the regional architecture to reduce duplication and to increase coordination. This has resulted for example in the integration of the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) and South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA) functions into SPC, which over time is expected to strengthen service to members and ensure a more coordinated approach.

The Pacific Plan, in driving this work, has provided a high level strategic framework, with input from CROP agencies, to shape the work of the Forum Secretariat and other CROP agencies to ensure a more coordinated approach to common issues. Another example of the role of the Plan is evident in its encouragement to Forum Island Countries and CROP agencies to work closely together on addressing the impact and effect of climatic changes on the region. This is reflected in the decisions by various Ministerial Forums reinforcing the coordinated approach by the region to addressing the impact of climate change.

As I have noted earlier, the Pacific Plan provides a strategic framework to track and report on progress towards greater regional cooperation and integration to a wider audience. Annual progress reports have been prepared since 2006, and there has been renewed effort in 2010 to report on all the work that is being undertaken by Forum Members and CROP agencies in support of the Leaders priorities for the Pacific Plan.

The Pacific Plan Action Committee provides a structured process where senior officials of Member countries and CROP agencies may influence the development of regional policy. The Pacific Plan Action Committee has also provided a mechanism for better coordination of the relevant work of CROP agencies as they relate to the Pacific Plan priorities, and for the CROP agencies to better explain to Members, and each other, how they are working in support of the Pacific Plan.

Partnerships

The Pacific Plan provides a very important entry point for engagement with development partners and the broader international community on the issues facing the Pacific region; and how these partners can assist. For example, Leaders and the United Nations agreed that, “The Pacific Plan reflects the region’s priorities which are in line with and support the implementation of international frameworks such as the Barbados Programme of Action and The Mauritius Strategy of Implementation.” (2007 Vava’u Decisions on the Pacific Plan)

A number of regional initiatives have been identified and driven as a result of the Pacific Plan. For example, the negotiation of the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement and the Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union, the provision of, sub-regional audit services for the Smaller Island States; regional approaches in the bulk procurement of petroleum; the establishment of the Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation; regional policies in energy, food security, information and communication technology; and increased regional cooperation on maritime monitoring and surveillance.

Regional security

The Pacific Plan also complements the Forum’s regional security architecture, including the Forum Regional Security Committee (FRSC) and the various security-related declarations by Leaders, including the Biketawa Declaration. The Plan’s objective of strengthening regional cooperation and integration are also important in achieving the vision of a peaceful and harmonious Pacific region. A collective approach to the region’s security challenges, including in tackling transnational crime and terrorism, in minimizing the damage created by internal conflicts and in addressing human security issues such as sexual and gender-based violence, remain fundamental to the creation of a conducive environment for the economic, social and political advancement of the Pacific region.

Pacific Plan – work in progress

In talking about the Pacific Plan as the regional vehicle for development, I acknowledge that the Pacific Plan commenced implementation only five years ago, in 2006. In that sense it is still a work in progress and some time will be required in order for us to see the full benefits of the Pacific Plan for the region.

Importantly, regional cooperation and integration is ultimately an exercise in political leadership. It depends on the willingness of Leaders in the Pacific to find a suitable balance between national interests and priorities and regional opportunities.

Taking our region forward and challenges ahead

Distinguished guests, I put to you now, how can we take our region forward and what are our challenges ahead?

As we look to the future, we must reflect on the past.

The Pacific has a long history of regionalism. This is important – the current global thinking of the Pacific islands as being isolated and facing great distances fails to understand a rich and proud history of an inclusive and interlinked Pacific where pre historical contact and networks between islands continue to be a key feature of the regional landscape.

Prior to colonialism and the development of western notions of state borders, our forbearers viewed the sea and islands as interconnected, a vast resource and ocean highway to be navigated, explored and revered. We are proud of this shared heritage and grateful to our ancestors for their resilience, foresight and courage.

During the colonial period, the Pacific Islands lost their sovereignty to various European, Pacific, North American and Asian powers and found themselves integrated into global empires, providing opportunities for foreign settlement and capital investment and markets for manufactured goods in return for the export of natural resources produced with low paid local labour. It is often forgotten that the Pacific Islands have already experienced a form of globalization, which most often did not work to their advantage.

Over the past few decades, we have regained our independence and treasure the right to again be able to determine our own affairs. This fact must be kept in mind as we negotiate new relationships in the increasingly globalised world of the 21st century.

Regionalism offers an opportunity for the Pacific to both build on our past and re-define our future and will require us to re-think the traditional notions of the state and its institutions—concepts that have largely been derived from Western liberal thinking and became the essence of our newly independent nations.

A fully integrated Pacific region will require us to re-think the traditional notions of the state and its institutions, concepts that have largely been inherited from developed Western economies.

To work cooperatively between Pacific States will require us to re-think the balance between national resources and institutions and regional ones. For example, where does the balance lie between service delivery at the national level and regional level? How can national policy in areas such as transport, education and health be shifted to the regional level? What institutions should exist solely at the regional level, and what is the ideal nature of the relationships between national and regional bodies and how do we use these relationships to our collective advantage?

This is not an easy debate. The Pacific is a very diverse group of countries, bound by our ocean and geography. Building common institutions in a region that covers one third of the world’s area is always going to be a challenging task.

The issue of climate change is one that to me warrants collective and coordinated responses by groups of nations. This is the strength of the Pacific and our region. We have a proud history of working together, finding consensus ways to make decisions for the collective good. But the challenges of today require us to work as a region to influence global thinking. If we cannot do that, we will have failed our people, people who will be forced to flee their homes as sea levels rise, fresh water is no longer available and food stocks dwindle. We owe it to our children and the future generation not to let this happen. We owe it to our ancestors, not to let this happen.

Another issue that is being promoted at the moment through the Forum Secretariat is the concept of full integration of Pacific countries. It is argued that full regional integration will offer greater access to labour markets in our more developed economies and that the free flow of goods and services will ultimately benefit our people. The difficulty in getting agreement to Pacer-Plus indicates that this is not as simple as it sounds and presents serious challenges to the national interest of a number of Pacific Island countries—challenges that we Pacific leaders sometimes underestimate in our eagerness to achieve short term economic benefits.

The economic zone envisaged by the Pacific Plan, for example, has the potential to benefit mainly Australia and New Zealand in trade, with Forum Island Countries bearing the adjustment costs. The removal of tariffs, which is envisaged, would greatly undermine one of the most important sources of revenue for a number of Pacific governments, since most are primarily importers and not exporters of goods and services. Moreover, it could be argued that closer ties with exporting countries offering more competitive prices for goods and services—especially countries in Asia—would be far more advantageous than tying ourselves only to Australia and New Zealand. Clearly, integration can be of benefit, but we need to more fully examine the long term effects.

Likewise, opening up our countries to the free flow of capital for investment has the potential to undermine our basic sovereignty. This is what happened in colonial times and the result was the acquisition in many cases of valuable land and domination of our economies by outsiders. We here in Vanuatu have recently experienced a speculative serge in land acquisitions by foreign investors that has increased the level of land disputes between our own people and held up the specter of the loss of control over our most important resource. We do not want a return to the conditions of colonial days where we have lost sovereignty in our own country. The present government is currently examining possible changes to legislation to provide more protection of Ni-Vanuatu interests in land matters.

Moreover, as you must certainly be aware, several Pacific Island countries are already participating in a scheme to allow laborers to travel to New Zealand on short term contracts for mainly agricultural work. It is hoped that a similar scheme proposed by the Australian government will also soon begin to operate. Here in Vanuatu, we have seen the benefits as both men and women return home with money saved, which they are able to use for improving the lives of their families. Hundreds apply whenever recruiters advertise for applications.

While the scheme appears to be a great success, we have not, however, begun to assess whether or not this free flow of labour out of our country may also have negative aspects. What, for example, is the effect on families when fathers and mothers—husbands and wives—absent themselves for months at a time? There are numerous examples of individuals who arrive back with hard earned money in their pockets who simply go on drinking binges for a few weeks leaving nothing to show for their hard work.

There are signs that the free flow of labour has the potential, in fact, to lead to shortages in our own countries. There are reports, for example, that some Pacific Island countries are experiencing a shortage of doctors and nurses due to significant number seeking employment overseas.

Related to this is the issue of training. There is a need to examine the financing of training facilities established around the region, which could begin to feed graduates into Australia and New Zealand. To ensure that the costs of educating and training this mobile labour will not be borne by the supplying countries alone it is important that significant financial support be provided through aid.

I want to repeat that I fully support the principle of expanding Pacific integration, but it is important to ensure that our countries truly benefit from any decisions made in this regard. While we, as Pacific Island Leaders, need to be able to look beyond our national interests and identify common challenges where a regional approach would best serve our needs, we must also insure that we retain a national approach when it best serves our people. Integration will only work where we can align national and regional interests. When this is not possible, then it is only right that we retain our own national approach in dealing with our needs.

A good example of a successful regional approach is the University of the South Pacific, a flagship institution for regional cooperation which has played a vital role in providing tertiary level education and building a shared identity for the Pacific. Its establishment in 1968, before most of our countries had gained independence, shows exceptional long-term thinking and a true commitment to regionalism on the part of the founders, which Pacific Island leaders have continued to foster and support. At the same time, over the years as populations have increased, several Pacific countries have moved to establish their own national universities. In my view, these new institutions should not be seen as competitors but as complementary to USP, providing new opportunities to meet new needs as defined by the particular countries themselves.

Leadership

Fundamentally, one of the challenges facing the Pacific region is also one of leadership. We, as Pacific Island Leaders, need to be able to look beyond our national interests and identify common challenges where a regional approach, instead of a national approach, will better serve the general good of the people. This will only work where we can align national and regional interests. The extent to which we can think on a regional scale and look at long-term opportunities to share resources for our common good will determine whether we succeed or fail.

A case for sub-regionalism

In considering regionalism, one trend that I would like to discuss is sub-regionalism.

In my view, there has been a tendency in the media and other sectors to view sub-regionalism as a threat to regionalism; as undermining regional institutions and efforts. Instead, I think regionalism should be viewed as countries with strong common interests working together to build mutual cooperation and understanding, and not at the expense of any other group.

A good example of the manifestation of sub-regionalism was the formation of the grouping of Smaller Island States within the Pacific Islands Forum in 1987, initially comprising Cook Islands, Kiribati, Niue and Tuvalu; later encompassing the Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru and Palau.

In endorsing the Plan Plan in 2005 in Port Moresby, Leaders agreed to note, among other things, the need to advocate the special and peculiar needs of Smaller Island States; provide special assistance for the implementation of the Pacific Plan, and ensure that they derive the fullest possible benefit from the Plan, particularly given their limited capacity and fragile and vulnerable environment.

Another example, close to home, is the Melanesian Spearhead Group, which has been portrayed as a challenge to the region, building alternative coalitions. Rather, it should be viewed as countries with a common history, related cultural traditions and a commitment to dialogue working together on issues of mutual interest. Sub-regionalism has it place. In some cases, services are better delivered at the sub-regional level rather than the region, such as audit services for the Smaller Island States. This is not to rule out Pacific wide regional approaches, rather it reflects practical, effective and sustainable use of the resources we have.

Our Vision for the region and the Pacific Plan

In many ways, the Leaders’ Vision for the Pacific that was adopted in 2005 as part of the Pacific Plan remains as relevant as ever. The Pacific Plan is an important step in taking Pacific regionalism forward.

It provides a very important framework that articulates Pacific Leaders’ highest priorities for the region, and helps to guide the work of CROP agencies, development partners and national governments.

A key challenge for the Pacific Plan is to build the linkages to the national level, and demonstrate how it is making a difference to the lives of Pacific people.

Civil Society

Some commentators would argue that there has been a gap between the Pacific Plan and non-state actors. It is quite clear that civil society plays an important role in national service delivery complementing work done by national governments. In this regard I think the connection between the Pacific Plan and civil society would need to be better demonstrated and captured in the Pacific Plan reporting frameworks. The challenge for the Secretariat on this important aspect of national and regional responsiveness is to better reflect this element in its reporting on the Plan.

But overall, may I say that the Pacific Plan has been hugely important in presenting a regional face to the rest of the world, including the global community. It has demonstrated to the global community that the Pacific region is tackling regionalism seriously, and that we are continuously looking at ways that we can work closer together for the benefit of the region.

The Pacific Plan has also shaped our thinking on the key priorities for the region and it has ensured a healthy and regular debate on what we should be doing to address the challenges facing our region.

It has also taken some time for the Pacific Plan to be fully understood by the region. Leaders and national governments have only just begun to appreciate the role of the Pacific Plan to compliment national efforts, rather than overtake them. Like any regional activity, it takes time to understand how it contributes to the national priorities of governments of the region, and how it can play a role in improving and enhancing those efforts.

Given that it has been six years since the introduction of the Pacific Plan, I would like to see some form of review or evaluation that assesses what impact the Pacific Plan has had on the region, and how it can be improved to continue serving the region for the next 10 years. While I will leave it to the Secretariat to consider the details of such an undertaking, I think this would be a useful exercise and ensure that the Pacific Plan remains relevant to our regional needs.

The Pacific Plan broadly addresses the major challenges facing the region, from climate change, to social issues, to security and stability. The key issue is, to what extent the Pacific Plan and complimentary efforts by CROP agencies are making a difference to the lives of the peoples of the Pacific. A comprehensive review will enable a better assessment of the effectiveness of all the work being undertaken in the name of the Pacific Plan, and enable Leaders in the region to continue to direct resources and efforts to those priorities.

Improving the Pacific Plan

The Pacific Plan has been implemented since 2006, a mere six years ago, and as a result of the hard work and cooperation efforts by Forum Members and CROP agencies has seen progress towards greater regional cooperation and integration.

The Pacific Plan has been very important in shaping our thinking around regionalism, provided a strategic framework for driving regional initiatives, and been a key entry point for the region’s engagement with development partners and the wider international community.

But having said that, I think there is scope for improvement in how we engage, and who we engage with, in the implementation of the Pacific Plan.

The decision by fellow Leaders in 2009 to set medium-term priorities for the Pacific Plan was a step forward. It ensured a clear sense of direction for the plan, and clearly articulated how we could deliver on the Leaders Vision for the Pacific as a, “region of peace, harmony, security and economic prosperity.”

My concern is how we translate these gains in regional integration and cooperation to the national level. There is no point working on a regional project if, at the end of the day, it does not benefit the communities and people of the Pacific. There needs to be more effort to explain and translate these regional gains into national benefits, so that people across the region get a better understanding of how regionalism will benefit their lives.

Some of that responsibility lies with Pacific Island Leaders. It is we who must explain to our people how regional integration will benefit their lives. For example, we must be able to argue the case for regional trade integration, especially on the basis of the benefits that this approach brings to the region.

But we must also be honest, for there will be difficult changes facing many parts of society if we fully integrate our trade, our economies and our communities. The region will need assistance from development partners and other key players to help us manage the challenges and take advantage of opportunities in ways that are socially responsible and sensitive to the history and culture of our region.

In explaining the benefits of regionalism, I think as I have noted earlier, there is a major opportunity under the Pacific Plan to engage more fully with civil society organizations and non-state actors. Non-state actors, including civil society and the private sector, must be key players in appropriately shaping and influencing regional policy. There needs to be greater reinvigoration of this relationship under the Pacific Plan, and we must seek more effective engagement between civil society and the key regional policy mechanisms.

With this, my regional friends and colleagues, I leave you to take this debate further. This is an important discussion and the Pacific Islands Forum’s 40th Anniversary has given us an excellent opportunity to reflect on our individual and collective efforts, and to plot the path ahead.

Tangkiu tumas and I look forward to views from the Panel and audience.

ENDS

Call for Papers for the 12th PIPSA Conference - December 8 - 9 2011

Call for papers

12^th Pacific islands Political Studies Association (PIPSA) Conference

Hosted by The University of the South Pacific, Alafua Campus, Apia, Samoa,

December 8-9 2011

Pacific politics, Pacific communities

This is a general call for papers for the 12^th PIPSA conference to be held in Apia, Samoa, hosted by the University of the South Pacific, Alapua Campus. The conference aims to explore a range of issues pertaining to the relationship between politics and community in the Pacific.  The broad theme Pacific politics, Pacific communities attempts to capture the complex relationship between communities and politics at the local, national, regional and international levels in the Pacific. It covers a range of issues and individual papers may focus on any of these specific areas:

...participatory democracy; community and grassroots governance; sustainable development; regime change; media and democracy; migration and development; conflict and conflict resolution; regional geo-politics; regional intervention; human rights; law enforcement; land and indigenous rights; youth participation; sovereignty and autonomy; sea-level rise; poverty and marginalization; gender participation; aid and development; cultural identity; citizenship; religion and politics; human security; regional security; globalization and free trade; community violence; intra-regional challenges; nation-building; constitutional and legal reform; electoral democracy; civil society engagement; cultural and ethnic diversity; political mobilization through virtual social networks...   

The 100 word abstract should be sent to Sue Rider (sue.Rider@anu.edu.au), Australian National University or Folole Asaua (f.asaua@auckland.ac.nz), University of Auckland, by 30 April 2011 and the 4,000 word paper by October 30 2011. Other details of the conference will be sent out later.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PIPSA committee: President, Steven Ratuva (University of Auckland); Vice-President, David Hegarty (Australian National University); Secretary, Jon Schultz (University of Melbourne); Tarcisius Kabutaulaka (University of Hawaii); Anne Brown (University of Queensland); Sandra Tarte (University of the South Pacific); Michael Leach (Swinburne University).     

Report finds mismatch in young Pacific peoples’ Career choice

A new report by the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the Department of Labour, looking at possible careers for today’s young Pacific peoples has found a mismatch between future job growth areas and current subject choices and achievement at school.

Published by the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the report says the key to improving future employment prospects for Pacific people lies in effective schooling and choosing the right subjects.

Current trends show that Pacific peoples continue to be over-represented in low-skilled, low-paid jobs.

“The best way forward for Pacific peoples is sound education at primary and secondary level, and choosing the NCEA subjects that fit areas of future employment demand and/or tertiary studies,” Ministry Chief Executive Dr Colin Tukuitonga says.

“Pacific peoples will be ten percent of the population by 2026, compared with six percent now. Today’s Pacific students need to be better informed about subjects, qualifications and future career pathways, and they need better support at tertiary level so that they stay and complete their qualifications.”

Memory Training for Students - Click Here!

Currently only 27.8 percent of Pacific school leavers qualify for university compared with 51.7 percent for Europeans and 67.8 percent for Asians.

“Our young people need to succeed not only for their own sakes, but so they can play their part in New Zealand’s future,” Dr Tukuitonga said.

The report, developed by the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the Department of Labour, looked at occupations and industries with the highest future growth forecast, the current numbers of Pacific peoples now employed in those areas and the educational pathways required for high-skilled, high-growth employment.

It identifies the top 10 growth occupations by 2018, and offers a number of suggestions for improving labour market prospects for Pacific people.

For more information:

Contact: Janine Gray

Senior Communications Advisor

Tel: 04 471 8246

'Racist' remark hurt Pasifika winners

By JO GILBERT - The Press

16 October 2010

St Thomas's College Young Enterprise Pasifika team, from left, Jordan Koloamatangi, Mathew Elia, Thomas Scott and Charlie Latulipe.

An award ceremony host's remark to a group of Pasifika pupils that "they can all read and write" has sparked anger.

The Oceanic Fusion team from St Thomas's of Canterbury College, made up of mainly Samoan and Tongan pupils, won a regional award in the Young Enterprise Scheme (Yes).

After announcing their success, host Tom McBrearty said: "I can assure you they can all read and write."

The remark was reportedly met with gasps and silence by the audience at Wednesday's ceremony at the New Zealand Institute of Management (NZIM) in Christchurch.

McBrearty, a former NZIM chief executive and current director and a Yes judge, said he had "engaged my tongue before my brain" and had not meant to say it.

One audience member, Community Law Canterbury manager Paul O'Neill, whose organisation mentored the St Thomas's team, said he was so disgusted he walked out.

The comment angered him because it was "a relatively small event that had a big issue around it", he said.

"It was a racist comment based on ignorance, I'm not saying it was done with maliciousness," he said.

"The worst thing was that when a St Thomas's teacher apologised to the boys afterward, they said, `That's all right sir, we are used to it'."

A member of the Oceanic Fusion team, Jordan Koloamatangi, 17, said the statement was distressing, but the boys could see McBrearty was genuinely sorry when he apologised afterward.

"It hurt us quite a bit," the year 13 pupil said.

"We, as individuals, have faced these stereotypical comments before, but having it come from someone like that, and at that level, we took it more heavily."

Maori and Pasifika pupils all across the country were trying to overcome the "stereotypical barriers", Koloamatangi said.

"We still hurt about it, but it makes us stronger and gives us more reason to work hard and strive for excellence in whatever we do."

McBrearty said his statement was "not at all" what he meant to say.

"I engaged my tongue before my brain," he said.

Boot Camp Basic - Click Here!

"What they've done is achieve amazingly well and they're an example to all young people, that's what I was aiming for.

"I meant they've read up their briefs, written really good reports, and there's an absolute connection between them, their product and their business practice, but it didn't come out that way and it was an absolute tragedy."

As well as apologising at the time, he had sent a written apology to the pupils and their school.

Do Math in the Head - Click Here!

St Thomas's principal Christine O'Brien said the comment was highly offensive and disappointing, but McBrearty seemed genuinely apologetic.

St Thomas's was in the process of organising a restorative justice conference with McBrearty, the pupils and their families. It was reviewing whether to participate in the scheme next year.

Ali Hughes, chief executive of Core Education, which administers Yes in the region, said McBrearty's remark was distressing and disappointing, but out of character.

He did a lot of good work with young people in Canterbury, she said.

OCEANIC FUSION

The six members of Oceanic Fusion are set to wing their way to Wellington after collecting the Young Enterprise Scheme's Canterbury regional award. Charlie Latulipe, Caleb Reweti, Kasiamo Petelo, Mathew Elia, Thomas Scott and Jordan Koloamatangi will attend the national awards on November 3. Reweti said the group, which included Samoans, Tongans, a Maori and a Pakeha, was proud of its achievement. Their company sells luxury soap with ingredients sourced from Samoa, with plans to donate profits to aid assistance in the country. The team is aiming for the Pacific Achievement Award.