Mandatory Review of Nga Toi Maori Qualifications
Governance Group Minutes
19 - 20 June 2013
Brentwood Hotel, Wellington
Day One
Mark Kopua, Wanairangi Nopera,Tama Huata,Jacob Scott, Tame te Rangi,Tina Wirihana,
Selwyn Parata, Paora Sharples, Tracey Huxford,
NZQA Keri-Anne Stephens, Jody Allen, Emmett Isaac, Josie Pulman, David More and
Campbell Wiki (for the MMEQA presentation).
Present
Apologies Donna Grant, Wilson Poha, Te Ngaruru Wineera.
Day One – Wednesday 19 June
1
Karakia
Tame te Rangi
Mihi
Herewini Parata
Whakautu Mark Kopua
1.1
Following karakia and mihi, members introduced themselves.
General kōrero about the review.
2
Mandatory Review Background Korero: (Jody Allen)
2.1
Jody Allen provided background information about the Targeted Review of
Qualifications and how it relates to the review of the Toi Māori qualifications.
(Power Point attached)
Issues raised and discussed include:

Specifications – Guidelines for Providers when they are developing their
programmes.

Whakamārama re: Accreditation, Moderation and CONSISTENCY. These
occur in Phase II of the review and development. Consistency of outcomes
is a measure of the graduates of the qualification. The consistency model
will be developed by the qualification developer and gives criteria around
how we measure outcomes.

Could we see a proliferation of programmes in the future?

Kei te pai mēnā kāore he tohu – kei a mātou tonu te mana. Engari he uaua
te huarahi mo ngā tauira e whai haere i ngā tohunga.
D:\401275793.doc
1
3

Specialists may not come under the NQF. This gives them “freedom”, but
then their contribution to the arts “drops off” the framework and is not
recognised, not funded,not valued, and is marginalised.

Iwi/Kaumātua endorsements should supercede qualifications.

Te Whare Pukenga currently gives recognition at the Iwi level.
Mātauranga Māori Evaluative Quality Assurance (MMEQA)(David More)
3.1
David More presented the background to the development of the MMeQA model,
and what the GG could expect when opting in to the MMEQA process of
evaluation.
Applicants are able to present their applications in-person as part of the MMeQA
process.
4
Group discussion
4.1
Discussions regarding:

TEC and funding implications on Providers.

Economic trend and focus of iwi. It was agreed that the needs analysis
should address this issue, and also an analysis of skills and the impact of
technology.

Hapū and Iwi experts and the way they do things. Why do we need to work
together? Should we? How do we?

Kei hea tētahi āhuru mo ngā mahi whakairo? What parts are “fit for public
consumption”?

The GG definately want input into the General review of the Arts to “sharpen”
that side of things also.

Kōrero re: Tohunga Suppression Act and the reluctance to engage. There is
some anxiousness with regard to changes in the process and what we put in
place today.

The integrity of the NQF will never match Te Tū a te Tohunga.
I hiki te hui mo te kai o te rānui.
5
Creative Arts Review Feedback (Wanairangi and Tame)
5.1
Main points of discussion:


Last year a stakeholder hui was held to discuss the upcoming review.
There was a lot of concern re: provider owned qualifications and what
would happen to them.
NQS is now leading the review. A Governance Group has been formed
and met about a month ago. The scope of the needs analysis did not
cover any Mātauranga Māori qualifications. The qualifications are being
D:\401275793.doc
2






5.2
6
reviewed separately but in parallel.
Main parts to the review include:
- Economic
- Changing patterns of the market place
- Local & export market growth
- Changes in technology
The GG has developed a “first cut” on what creativity “looks like”
- Exploration
- Ideation
- Conceptualisation
- Expression and technique
- Logistics and organisation
Cultural expression should not be lost, and moving forward the two
reviews (mātauranga Māori and mainstream) should be more
collaborative.
Concentrate on Creative processes at Levels 3-6 as pre-entry to the
Degree level.
L1-2 as foundation skills, health and well-being, safety, skills etc.
The first draft of the landscape of qualifications will be out for consultation
within the next 2-3 days. Encourage feedback to the GG.
We have an opportunity, through Tame and Wanairangi, to provide the
mainstream Governance Group with a Māori world view in regards to the creative
arts.
A. Role of the Governance Group (Josie Pulman)
6.1
The Governance Group Terms of Reference was discussed and amendments
made to better suit the Toi Māori review. (Terms of Reference attached)
Discussion points:
 He aha te huarahi mo ngā iwi e whakarite nei i a rātou ake huarahi?
 Te Puia was set up to foster Ngā Toi for te iwi Māori. Tame to talk to
Harry and get back to MQS, who will then follow up and formally invite.
 Ngā Puna Waihanga – Jacob to follow up with Ross Hemara.
 NZ Historic PlacesTrust – MQS to approach Dean Whiting.
 Ngā Kaupapa – kei te pai inā ka pīrangitia t/ētahi atu anō, ā, ka tāpiri atu.
 Make amendments re: iwi/Māori on P19 and throughout the rest of the
document.
 Amendments to be circulated to the GG for further consideration and
changes if required.
6
B. Review Plan (Emmett Isaac)
6.2
The Draft Review Plan was discussed. (See attached)
Discussion points:
 Funding Issues – providers may change grouping to attract funding.
Duration of programmes have been shortened which affects funding.
D:\401275793.doc
3






7
Need to talk with TEC and discuss funding issues with them. GG don’t
want to build up expectations.
Toi Māori qualifications are not only important in terms of employment.
They are also important in terms of the aspirations of the hapū and iwi.
Future qualifications may include “Fine Arts” to attract funding.
Where do Māori Music qualifications fit? There may also be a link to the
mainstream qualifications.
“Threatened Arts” are also something to consider for the future.
Workforce mapping – for now and the future.
Karakia Whakamutunga. Day one concluded
Day Two – Thursday 20 June
Day One
Wanairangi Nopera,Tama Huata,Jacob Scott, Tame te Rangi,Tina Wirihana, Paora Sharples,
Tracey Huxford, Wilson Poha, Te Ngaruru Wineera, Donna Grant (at 11.44am)
Titia Graham and Diane Taumata (for the Needs Analysis presentation)
NZQA- Keri-Anne Stephens, Emmett Isaac, Josie Pulman.
Present
Apologies Mark Kopua, Selwyn Parata, Jody Allen.
8
Karakia Paora Sharples
8.1
Recap of yesterday. Issues raised in general discussion:





9
New developments will replace qualifications currently listed on the NQF.
GG expressed a desire to maintain synchronicity with the mainstream
review to include kaupapa Māori and input into their review from Toi
Māori GG.
What have we learnt from the past? What can we do better moving
forward?
He aha te tino ngako o tēnei kaupapa? Ahakoa he aha i puta nā te
Kāwanatanga, ka haere tonu ngā mahi a te hapū/iwi. Kia tika, kia pono
ngā kaupapa Māori.
Whatever we develop, make sure it is quality so that we won’t have to do
it again.
Landscape discussions
9.1
Titia Graham and Diane Taumata presented their findings so far.
(Powerpoint attached)
Discussion followed the presentation:
 Employment Outcomes –Ngā Toi is a small industry sector and there are
no statistics around Ngā Toi Māori employment. Most graduates become
self-employed, get commissions, contracts etc.
D:\401275793.doc
4



Therefore we need to consider including skills around negotiating
contracts, commissioning, expressions of interest, putting in bids etc.
Need to create pathways amongst iwi to create the space/industry/need
for graduates of these qualifications.
It’s about branding. Are our qualifications branded too low? Do we take
what we have for granted and down play the true value and potential in
what we have? E.g. Paora’s kōrero re: Team building through “Haka and
Hāngi”
What outputs are we looking for?
EMPLOYMENT?
ARTS APPRECIATION?
Sales etc (investment)
Improve Economy
Government Support
FUNDING
Qualifications and Courses
GRADUATES



Currently Canberra University delivers courses/training in conservation for
conservators. Do we incorporate these skills into our qualifications?
Toi Māori qualifications and programmes must validate skills (whānau,
hapū, iwi development) and link to local hapū/iwi resources, kōrero etc.
“Arts rich students out-perform arts poor students” (Paul Whitinui).
I hiki te hui mo te kai o te rānui.
9.2
The GG discussed current qualifications, programmes, and future needs:
-
What are the essential skills, knowledge and competencies?
-
Qualifications for whom?
-
For what role(s)?
-
Why are the qualifications needed and relevant?

Performing Arts:
-
Performing Skills: voice, sound, movement
-
Studies/performance
-
Epistemology, pedagogy, Rangahau
-
Āhuatanga Māori and wānanga
-
The National qualifications are generic and allow for different iwi
D:\401275793.doc
5
perspectives








-
Need for further stair-casing at level 6 to level 7 degree
qualifications
-
Essential skills are needed at levels 1-2 but providers have to put
in bids for funding at these levels.
Whakairo:
-
Level 1-2: Generic skills & safety
-
Level 3-4 qualifications needed.
Raranga:
-
Include design elements
-
Include skills and knowledge at Levels 1-3
Competencies to be defined that can be achieved in different ways and
combinations – media and disciplines.
Inclusion of te reo and tikanga essential.
Competencies to include business skills, finances, proposals etc.
Maintain synergies with the mainstream qualifications.
Specific CMR or specifications to be attached to each qualification to
ensure the integrity of the kaupapa.
This is about creating future opportunities in Ngā Toi Māori.
See Proposed Nga Toi Māori Qualifications Landscape document.
11
Karakia Whakamutunga
ACTION LIST:
Action #
Hui date
1
19 June
Minute
Ref
6.1
Action
Tame to contact Harry at Te Puia.
By When
18 July
Contact MQS with outcome for further
action.
2
19 June
6.1
Jacob to follow up with Ross Hemara
18 July
3
19 June
6.1
MQS to approach Dean Whiting
18 July
4
19 June
6.1
MQS to make amendments on page 19
and circulate to GG for further
consideration
18 July
D:\401275793.doc
6