MORENA, GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO Q+A. I'M GREG BOYED. TODAY ` LYDIA KO WINS AN OLYMPIC SILVER MEDAL OVERNIGHT. YES! SHE HAS DONE IT. THEN ` THE WAY WE FUND OUR SCHOOLS IS GETTING AN OVERHAUL. THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION CALLS IT 'GLOBAL FUNDING'. TEACHERS SAY IT'S BULK FUNDING IN DISGUISE. HOW WILL IT AFFECT STUDENTS? WHO WOULD BE THE WINNERS AND LOSERS? AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE DECILE SYSTEM? CORIN DANN WILL BE ASKING HEKIA PARATA AND LABOUR'S EDUCATION SPOKESPERSON CHRIS HIPKINS. THEN ` KEVIN MITNICK WAS ONCE A NOTORIOUS HACKER. HE'S NOW A CYBERSECURITY CONSULTANT, WITH THE FBI JUST ONE OF HIS CLIENTS. HE'S HERE TO TALK TO NZ BUSINESS LEADERS ABOUT ONLINE SECURITY, AND HE HAS SOME TIPS FOR YOU TOO. USING THAT WILL RAISE THE BAR, MAKE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR A BAD GUY TO BREAK INTO YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS. DUE TO THE LIVE NATURE OF Q+A, WE APOLOGISE FOR THE LACK OF CAPTIONS FOR SOME ITEMS. AND WE'LL HAVE ANALYSIS FROM OUR EXTENDED PANEL ` POLITICAL SCIENTIST DR RAYMOND MILLER, FROM AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY. CATHERINE BEARD, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MANUFACTURING NZ & EXPORT NZ. JOHN TAMIHERE, THE CEO OF WAIPAREIRA TRUST AND ANGELA ROBERTS, PRESIDENT OF THE PPTA, THE TEACHERS UNION FOR SECONDARY TEACHERS. LYDIA KO HAS BECOME NZ'S YOUNGEST EVER FEMALE OLYMPIC MEDALLIST, WINNING SILVER WITH A STUNNING BIRDIE IN THE FINAL ROUND OF GOLF IN RIO. AFTER TYING FOR SECOND FOR MOST OF THE FINAL ROUND WITH CHINA'S FENG SHANSHAN, LYDIA NEEDED TO LAND THIS BIRDIE TO CLAIM THE SILVER MEDAL. CROWD CHEERS YES! SHE HAS DONE IT. CHEERING FELLOW NORTH SHORE TEENAGER ELIZA MCCARTNEY BRIEFLY HELD THE TITLE FOR THE YOUNGEST NZ FEMALE OLYMPIC MEDALLIST WHEN SHE WON BRONZE IN THE POLE VAULT. DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW LYDIA? OH, NOT PERSONALLY, BUT I CERTAINLY KNOW A LOT ABOUT HER. (LAUGHS) SO EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE BOTH GROWN UP ON THE NORTH SHORE, YOU WERE BORN JUST A FEW MONTHS APART, YOU'VE NEVER COME ACROSS HER IN SCHOOL ACTIVITIES, SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OR ANYTHING? NOT PARTICULARLY, BUT I GUESS I DO KNOW THAT SHE'S BEEN UP FOR A FEW NORTH HARBOUR AWARDS THAT I'VE BEEN UP AGAINST HER AND NOT BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL. (LAUGHS) KO'S PIPPED HER AT THE POST AGAIN BY A FEW MONTHS. AND NZ CHEF DE MISSION ROB WADDELL SPOKE TO PETER WILLIAMS A SHORT TIME AGO. WELL, HERE'S THE MAN WHO'S PRESIDED OVER NZ'S MOST SUCCESSFUL OLYMPIC CAMPAIGN. ROB WADDELL, AS A FORMER GOLD MEDALLIST YOURSELF, YOU MUST BE DELIGHTED WITH THE COUNT OF 17 MEDALS AND STILL TWO MORE ATHLETES TO COMPETE. YEAH, IT'S BEEN A GREAT GAMES. WE'RE REALLY PLEASED. THE MOST MEDALS WE'VE EVER HAD IN AN OLYMPIC GAMES. SOME GREAT PERFORMANCES. I THINK WE'VE ALL ENJOYED WATCHING THEM. AND A COUPLE MORE TO COME. WELL, A COUPLE MORE PEOPLE PERFORMING, ANYWAY, SO LOOKING FORWARD TO WATCHING THOSE. FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE POINT OF VIEW, HOW HAVE YOU FOUND THE OVERALL ORGANISATION OF THE GAMES? LOOK, IT'S BEEN BUSY, AND SOME OF THAT'S BEEN WELL PUBLICISED. OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE CHALLENGES EARLY ON. AND PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU FELT LIKE YOU NEVER CAUGHT UP AND WERE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO DO. BUT WE FEEL PLEASE THAT WE DELIVERED AS A TEAM, AND IT'S BEEN ABLE TO BE DONE IN A WAY THAT I DON'T THINK THE ATHLETES HAVE BEEN AFFECTED. THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET ON AND DO THE JOB. THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. I SUPPOSE FOR AN ATHLETE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS ARE THE FACILITIES AND THE TRANSPORT. I KNOW FROM A MEDIA POINT OF VIEW, THE TRANSPORT'S BEEN FINE. FROM THE ATHLETES' POINT OF VIEW, THINGS HAVE WORKED WELL IN THOSE RESPECTS? YEAH, THAT'S ONE THING WE WERE PLEASED TO OBSERVE. WHEN WE INITIALLY TURNED UP, WE REALISED THAT THERE WERE SOME CHALLENGES IN THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT. BUT THE FIELD OF PLAY FOR THE ATHLETES SEEMED TO BE FAIR AND IT SEEMED TO BE DONE WELL. SO THE VENUES` THE FEEDBACK FROM ALL THE ATHLETES COMPETING IS THAT IT WAS DONE WELL AND WE ENJOYED WATCHING THEM COMPETE THERE. A FEW ATHLETES FROM OTHER NATIONS APPEAR TO HAVE GOT THEMSELVES IN A BIT OF STRIFE AFTER-HOURS. OBVIOUSLY, THE AMERICANS' AND THE AUSTRALIANS' EFFORTS IN THAT RESPECT HAVE BEEN WELL PUBLICISED. NZERS HAVE REALLY KEPT THEIR NOSES CLEAN, HAVEN'T THEY? HAS THAT BEEN A DELIBERATE MESSAGE THAT YOU'VE BEEN PUTTING TO YOUR 199 ATHLETES, THAT 'THERE IS TROUBLE OUT THERE. BEHAVE YOURSELVES'? IT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE FOR ANY TEAM AT ANY OLYMPIC GAMES BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE DYNAMIC WHERE YOU'VE GOT ATHLETES STILL ARRIVING, YOU'VE GOT ATHLETES THAT ARE COMPETING, AND YOU'VE GOT THIS POST-COMPETITION PHASE AS WELL. SO YOU ARE VERY MINDFUL THAT YOU'VE GOT ALL THREE GOING ON. IN SOME WAYS YOUR WORKLOAD ALMOST TRIPLES. BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER TEAMS AND THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY'VE HAD, BUT WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD ON EDUCATING OUR ATHLETES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE AWARE OF SOME OF THE RISKS THAT MIGHT BE OF BEING IN A FOREIGN CITY AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THEY MIGHT FACE POST-GAMES. AND, TOUCH WOOD, WE'VE HAD A GOOD RUN TO DATE. I KNOW THAT THERE IS A LONG TIME UNTIL THE NEXT OLYMPIC GAMES. BUT HOW DO YOU KEEP ON IMPROVING THE CYCLE? SOONER OR LATER YOU'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF ABILITY TO KEEP ON IMPROVING GAMES ON GAMES, AREN'T YOU? THAT'S THE CHALLENGE, ISN'T IT? MIGHT MAKE A ROD FOR OUR OWN BACK IN THE NEXT GAMES. BUT, LOOK, I'M SO EXCITED ABOUT THE TALENT THAT'S SITTING OUT THERE IN OUR OLYMPIC TEAM. THERE'S A NUMBER OF YOUNG ATHLETES RIGHT ACROSS ALL CODES WHO HAVE SHOWN THEY'VE GOT SO MUCH POTENTIAL AT THESE GAMES, SITTING FROM FOURTH TO EIGHTH POSITION AS WELL. SO WE'D ALL AGREE THERE'S PLENTY TO BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT IN THE FUTURE. AND I THINK WHAT'S MOST PLEASING TOO IS THAT IT'S BEEN ACROSS A RANGE OF SPORTS. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF SPORTS COME HERE AND DELIVER RESULTS. I THINK NINE SPORTS NOW HAVE MEDALLED. SO IT TALKS WELL TO THE SYSTEM THAT'S IN NZ. ROB WADDELL, THANK YOU. WELL MANAGED. THANKS. WELL, A COUPLE MORE DAYS TO GO, SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO FINISHING ON A POSITIVE NOTE. PETER WILLIAMS TALKING TO LYDIA KO THERE. BACK TO POLITICS NOW. HERE'S CORIN. WE ASKED TO SPEAK TO MINISTER OF HEALTH JONATHAN COLEMAN YESTERDAY ON THE WATER CONTAMINATION IN THE HAWKES BAY. WE WERE TOLD HE WASN'T AVAILABLE. WE WILL TRY HIM AGAIN NEXT WEEK. NOW A GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF HOW SCHOOLS ARE FUNDED HAS COME UP WITH SEVEN NEW IDEAS FOR CONSULTATION. THERE'S NO NEW MONEY IN THE SCHOOLS BUDGET ` THE REVIEW SIMPLY LOOKED AT HOW BEST TO SPEND THE MONEY IN A WAY THAT WILL IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. ONE IDEA IS TO SCRAP THE DECILE SYSTEM AND REPLACE IT WITH FUNDING THAT'S TARGETED AT THE CHILD IN NEED. ANOTHER PROPOSAL IS A 'GLOBAL BUDGET' FOR EACH SCHOOL TO COVER RUNNING COSTS AND TEACHER SALARIES. TEACHER UNIONS ARE ALARMED AT THIS, SAYING IT'S ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO BRING IN BULK FUNDING, REJECTED BY SCHOOLS AND PARENTS 20 YEARS AGO. AND LABOUR'S BACKING THEM, SAYING IT'LL LEAD TO FEWER TEACHERS AND BIGGER CLASS SIZES. WE'RE TALKING TO EDUCATION MINISTER HEKIA PARATA SHORTLY, BUT FIRST LABOUR'S EDUCATION SPOKESPERSON CHRIS HIPKINS JOINS ME NOW. Good morning. In the nterest of bipartisanship, Do you agree we need to review the system? There are elements of the funding system that need to be looked at. We hope they will would help remove the stigma of the funding system. PUtting global funding aside, They are proposing the money follows the student instead of decile. Extra money for disadvantaged students. Kind of like voucher system. It depends on the measure you are using for disadvantage. Let's go look at some of those ` the mother's educational background, whether someone has been in prison, benefits. Some of those are already included in the decile funding calculation. Decile funding that we have is a blunt instrument. There is no question. But it targets a large group of students who need extra support. But isn't the focus about redistributing money that might go to kids who don't need it to kids who do need it. Isn't that something Labour would be into? The presumption is that schools are getting money that don't need it. Every school in the country said they could use more money. If it is about re-carving the existing pie, that is where the Problem starts. More money is required. If you have the same size pie but more people eating from it, they will end up less satisfied. The schools are not getting enough funding to meet the needs. What will Labour do? The first thing we need to do was look at the quantum of funding that schools require and in real term, on a per student basis, funding has been going backwards. We need to make sure they are being adequately funded. Hekia Parata will tell you we're spending more money on education than ever before. The funding the last users actually been going down. Labour would increase education funding? How much? It's a question of the system needing more money. We need to catch up for the underfunding that has happened over the last eight years. We need to look at how we allocate additional funding. Kids with special needsneed extra funding. There is a huge unmet demandthat those kids. If we talk about kids who are being disadvantaged by the education system, that is a good place to start. What about disadvantaged kids who are struggling? We know they are not performing at the bottom of the system. What will you do to target those kids? Wwe have to do a lot outside the school system. When their parents are moving from house to house because they can't find stable accommodation, hat has a big impact on their chances at school. LEt's keep the focus on education. WE know about this tale. The kids at the bottom. Surely what the government is proposing makes sense. IT won't target them any more accurately than the decile system. The OECD's Pisa study says growing inequality is the greatest factor in unequal educational performance. inequality outside the system has a massive impact. ISsues around the numbers of teachers, class size? Do they not have an impact? The schools will be forced to make funding trade-offs. THey might also be able to tailor their teaching in a way that is beatable the children. That can only result in them employing fewer teachers. How's that beautiful kids? One of the biggest determinants as to how well could still in the classroom is the feedback they get from teachers. Maybe there is one head teacher and two or three junior teachers. Maybe that is better for those children. There is nothing to stop schools from doing that now. The only additional flexibility schools will gain through this proposal as they will be able to employ fewer teachers in order to spend money on things like IT or paying the power Bill or the other costs that government funding is not keeping up with. Are you Comfortable with stop work meetings? There is a consultation process. Should parents be okay with that? The idea of consultation as you have to provide an opportunity teachers and parents and all those affected to discuss it. Do you think unions are too powerful in New Zealand education? If you were the Minister of education how would you work with them? You can't divorce the unions from the teachers. Any government that wants to achieve objectives in education must work with teachers nd that means working with unions. Are you working on policy? If you came into government would you do something different? wE will be looking at equity, Ensuring the decisions we make our future focused. But you won't adopt the per-student funding model they are looking at. Global funding? No to both. What will you do? One specific? LOoking at the current funding system and look at the quantum of money that is required. We have to look at how much money is required. We have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in real terms in school funding in the last eight years. We need to look at how much is going to be required to give these kids are shot at education. WE'RE KEEN TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS. WE'RE ON TWITTER @NZQandA. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT Q+A@ TVNZ.CO.NZ OR TEXT YOUR THOUGHTS AND FIRST NAME TO 2211. KEEP THEM BRIEF ` EACH TEXT COSTS 50C. AFTER THE BREAK ` EDUCATION MINISTER HEKIA PARATA FRONTS UP NEXT. EDUCATION MINISTER HEKIA PARATA JOINS ME NOW. Yyou heard Chris Hipkins there. Not keen on your proposed changes and adamant you are not funding education adequately. Children are at the heart of this funding review. We are putting over $11 billion of money into education. It's more than conservation, transport, police. It should be because this is critical to our future. We need to say we are spending it well in order to make the arguments for further future funding. On the extra money wwe have had the biggest year of population growth in our history. You are just doing what the government is supposed to do. The achievement results the 2015` I mean the funding. But the purpose of funding is that Kids get great results. We have doubled early childhood education funding in the time we have been in government. We have had a 30% increase in provision for special education. Yet you froze operational spending in the budget for schools. No. Schools have money for operational grounds. But instead of doing a 1% across-the-board operational ground improvement we were targeted against young people from homes who are long-term dependent on benefit incomes and see whether we can invest early, lift the level of the education achievement. Is that a foretaste of what the new system would look like iif you got rid of the decile system? Redistributing the money to kkids in need? We want every kid in New Zealand to do well. We want to pick up those who have been left behind. We know we're putting a lot of funding and, but we have are poor line of sight for the money that goes on and the education outcomes. How much learning should child be able to achieve in the year? Eensuring everyone about kids is getting that, and those who aren't, how do we pick that up? We don't want them picking up learning debt and have that compound through their schooling. Is that really and and? Yyou say this is about redistributing the pie. Someone has to lose. I don't think the paper says that. We will test seven proposals with the education sector and see whether there is a better way of using the 11 billion we have already invested and then as a base to argue for future funding. We should be able to say for all of that money why is it that we still have too many young people, too many from poor homes who are not getting the same opportunities. We don't want to wait until year 12 and find that they are Illiterate. With national standards and NCEA and a new tool for the gap at year nine and 10, we can pick that up sooner. If the child is at a decile five school nd they are not disadvantaged, not consider disadvantaged yet another kid at the same school is considered disadvantaged, whatever the criteria is, how does the disadvantaged child benefit as opposed to the other child? Where does the money come from? We are not proposing a student voucher. We propose to use data, understand the educational challenges at school. The decile system takes the general population with the school is located. It's well-intentioned but blunt. We have far more texture of information then when the decile system was introduced. Once we have aggregated the funding that should assist meeting the challenge and the school, t is the judgement of the principal and board and teachers how they spend it. They are the ones on the spot. Every child is unique and they have a number of common educational challenges but they have different ones. Why tag bulk funding on to this proposal? WE are having a discussion. The proposition about global budgets is a mechanism for delivery, nnot what determines the amount. What does it cost to deliver one year of curriculum for every child? What is the benefit of doing that? Because every child is different, the best person who knows what needs to be done is the principal, the board and the teachers. The decisions they make will be different from school to school. We are interested in maintaining choice for parents as to what school they send their child to, flexibility for teachers and results for kids. Can you guarantee it won't lead to bigger class sizes? It is the principal that besides the size of the class it is not me. Bbut you give them a mechanism which enables them to do it more. Does that mean you don't trust principles? CORRECTION: principals. PRincipals don't want it. DEfore making policy, I have asked for us to share the decisions. The unions are full members of the advisory group. Surely if there is a benefit then teachers and principals would want it and they don't. We don't know that. We know the unions have said they want to consult the members. Primary, secondary school unions and principals have joined forces. They have said it is going too far. When was the last time you saw those two unions team up? THat is for them to decide. We have been in a consultation process, the unions are members of that. There are seven proposals on the table. It appears that one of them, the unions are not happy with. We have consulted and 80 meetings across the country with teachers and principals and boards and we look forward to the results. I proposed that we get feedback of this kind sso that we could be informed. He Prime Minister has indicated iif you don't get the buying, you might not progress. That's important. What are you saying the parents and teachers? If they don't buy into the global funding element, will you let it go? We are interested in hearing back from all of the sector. That is why we have held the meetings. This process has been going on for quite some time. August is when you start firming it up. How much more consultation do you need? Next week is the end of the three-month process. Now the unions have said they want to have paid union meetings. That is theIr right. I think it is a great inconvenience to parents but that is their decision. My responsibility is to say How do we make sure every child gets the best education? Hhow do we do that in differentiated ways because all children are different. how do we make sure that the money invested ensures kids are leaving the system to go on to university, to build our economy? Are you upset they will have union meetings in school time? We have had a significant consultation and all of the information is transparently available. But at the heart of this is kids. How do we make sure in every classroom, every child is getting the best education? Isn't that the heart of the matter for unions as well? There are many things we can find in common with unions. In the end their accountability is to the membership; Mine is to the children and parents. Where we can coincide, that is great. We have worked with the PPTA a on funding on this element of critical piece of the educational system, there is disagreement. Can you give us an indication weather the global funding is one that you are happy to let go let's be clear about the process. I need to go back to Cabinet. I don't have a licence to be dismissing things hat I have a mandate... which is the higher priority. It is getting the right resource to the right child at the right time. We won't get an answer on that one. Teacher shortages. You have put in extra money. There is a massive shortage in Auckland. THere is not a massive shortage in Auckland. We have 52,000 teachers across our system. There are a total of 300 vacancies across all Auckland schools. For the school experiencing that, it is a crisis. But the level of teacher supply is higher than we mean we had these problems in 2002 to 2009. YOu can't pay them enough to live in these areas. The net outflow of teachers from Auckland to other positions around the country is very low. I don't have a specific at the moment. What we do know we have more vacancies for English teachers then for maths teachers, yyet there is a perception there is a big shortage of maths. The school experiencing a shortage, it is a problem. That is why we have invested $9 million. 50 more graduate places on teach first. But nothing for housing. If you are coming back from overseas to take a teaching job in New Zealand, how can you buy a house or even rent iin a suburban Auckland and teach on a teacher salary? Iit can't be done any more. THe average teacher's salary is $74,000. That would be 11 timesthe median house price. WE have a housing plan. My role as education. Vastly the teacher movement in Auckland is with an Auckland schools. We still have teachers wanting to come to Auckland. We need to make the profession rewarding. Our education system is very good. That is because people in the past have had the courage to see what needs to be improved. I DON'T THINK WE CAN SIT BACK AND SAY, IN SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS YOUNGSTERS' EDUCATION, THAT WE ARE NEVER PREPARED TO TACKLE A FEW ISSUES, EVEN IF, ALONG THE WAY, IT UPSETS A FEW PEOPLE. I THINK THE IMPORTANT POINT IS DOING WHAT'S RIGHT AND GETTING THE MOST VALUE FOR THE TAXPAYER DOLLAR. JOHN KEY MAKING A CASE FOR CHANGE. There appears to be the consensus that the decile system is a blunt instrument. Would you agree with that? It's actually tiny. It's about 2 to 3% of the amount of money that goes into a school. How do you better identify need or risk, and how much do you drop into the system in response? The third thing is the balance between the student and the most extreme end of that is about voucher that follows the child. There is a sweet spot that we might need to model and try, the school has to have some stability. We can't sustain programs over time if it's constantly following the child. Is what they are proposing going down the right road? At the growing tail end is a very worthwhile debate. My biggest problem is that it can't be about the teacher unions and government policy. It must be community centred, tthe students and parents, because ultimately a lot of appearance at the bottom end of the communities are good parents but they can't help them off the campus and they hope that things are working. It's outstanding on some campuses. Education is a journey and not a destination. We have to focus on listing out education status, the deficit of not fixing this is starting to get out of whack, because you need progressive citizenships and there are young people that are not working well out of the system. What will your thoughts of what she had to say? What was interesting is that there are two quite interesting initiatives which they need to work on more. The first is the whole question of deciles. It's not just the blunt instrument, it's a crude instrument that stigmatises children. It's really a very unfair system. The second thing is the importance of helping those children who are underachieving. Those two things could get broad support. I don't understand why the government is picking a fight with teachers and principals and many parents on the question of global funding. I think there are some good things to be emphasised here. I think she touched on some of them. I think the major problem that she denied, there is no commitment to fresh money for this. It's existing money, and that will pose problems. I'm pretty sure it's in that cabinet paper. One of the risks was that they thought people might think it means more money, but actually it's just redistribution of money. It's interesting that Chris Hipkins` I thought he might have been more positive about the changes, because it seems with the unions that there is some hope of bipartisanship and agreement, without the political gameplaying, you do have to wonder why that global funding is there. Maybe it's a strawman which gets knocked down. It does seem bizarre to go back to that fight. You had a completely different take on this. Perhaps just teachers and schools is on the way to go? If you keep doing the same thing you're doing and what you're doing is not working, then you will get the same result. It's failing too many children. Between 15 and 25, there are 70,000 who are not in education or employment. That's about the size of Palmerston North. Those people are going to go on and be a huge drag on society. They will probably be on benefits their whole lives. When it comes to employment, they don't even have the basic numeracy and literacy. They completely been` the whole system has not delivered for them. What is your answer to that? These kids need absolutely targeted support from quite a young age. The current one size fits all system doesn't work. We don't do that in business. But we want to support exporters going into international markets, we don't say this is the same for all of you. We look at their strengths and weaknesses and say you need some help. Why wouldn't you give principals and teachers on the ground the ability to tailor and customise the support for those children? If we're talking about the resource saying that goes to the students, let's assume that we sorted out how we work out who those kids are. Which communities need which support. It is about how much. Redistributing to 3% is not going to make a difference. If you look at the evidence from other jurisdictions, nobody's got the exact answer, places like the Netherlands and their results, they have pushed back against with equity funding, significantly greater than 2% or 3%. We would like to see the model about 10%. Putting more kids in to help those students access and get better access in the classroom. This is coming down to, if you are redistributing from the budget and extending the 2 to 3% to the 10%, it's billions of dollars. As it redistribution or is it new money? There will be a lot of people who will miss out. I don't think it should all be about the redistribution debate. It should be about what brings the best change to a failing education system. As a consequence, you have to look at the type of systemic that you roll new money into. This is a discussion about giving the right formula in place they get the right measures in place, rather than redistribution, it works very well. I think Chris Hipkins we need bipartisanship on this. Such is the impact on business. Impact on these kids and communities, it's all about our future generation. What did you make of Chris Hipkins had to say? He didn't give figures or numbers. He says we have to be future focused, and that makes me break out in hives. He said there had to be more money thrown into the system. Exactly, you have to measure it. You have to look at all the reporting cabinet papers, the advisory group has the luxury of looking at that, when you look at that, it's very clear that we don't know what it costs for a student to get what they need in order to succeed. We are only just going into schools and digging into how much money do you get from local fare or international students and how do you respond with that money is needing additional support. Until we understand how much their costs and which bits are successful, then we can't quantify it. Isn't that a reason to have a more diverse approach to how we do this? If you have a one size fits all, you will never find out what works and what doesn't, because it runs doing the same thing. If you give that spending power to the principal and the teachers, you talk about more money ` what about smart money? Does Labour throw its weight behind us? Chris Hipkins is a clever fellow. The problem for Labour is that they don't want to come up with a policy is too soon, so they appear to be rather negative. He's arguing to help outside the school gate. Both are important. I think the problem for Labour is that they don't have policies in place to be able to say this is what we think should be done. That is a major disadvantage of the opposition. How would you be handling this John? If you were Hekia Parata, what message would you be sending? We just had to refashion and be quite consistent in the process. You can't consistently have opposition when it's about the nationals common good. You have to start to engage in this thing then play the kids as the meat in the sandwich. It impacts on employment and the good of the family. The education unions have always had a strong license as a consequence, because their bargaining tool is our babies. That is the caution for them. The Hekia Parata, trying to build some consensus around new tools. We agree that the present ones are blind and silly. Had you get new ones if no one wants to entertain the debate? That's the caution that Labour has to be careful of, in the event there is industrial action, parents aren't always supportive of teachers especially they feel their children are suffering. Labour will have to be careful how it handles this. How important is when the Hekia Parata on this, a win? It's been an up-and-down performance for her. You are seeing correlations between the per student voucher system, and what Bill English wants to do. That's what they want to do in this government. She wouldn't give me an answer, but surely global funding is less of a priority. If you could get something across the line in the per student and disadvantage space, then she would be happy. UP NEXT ` CYBER SECURITY EXPERT KEVIN MITNICK ON HIS TIME AS A TEENAGE HACKER. AND THEN I GOT SO HOOKED INTO DOING THIS BECAUSE OF THE FUN AND EXCITEMENT THAT WHEN THEY STARTED MAKING LAWS THAT CRIMINALISED THIS STUFF, I CONTINUED DOING IT ANYWAY. KEVIN MITNICK FIRST HACKED INTO A COMPUTER NETWORK AT THE AGE OF 16. IT WOULDN'T BE THE LAST FOR THE LA TEEN. AFTER HACKING INTO THE COMPUTER NETWORKS OF AT LEAST 40 MAJOR CORPORATIONS, HE BECAME ONE OF THE FBI'S MOST WANTED AND EVENTUALLY SERVED TIME IN A US PRISON. THESE DAYS, HE'S A CYBERSECURITY CONSULTANT, USING HIS HACKING SKILLS TO SHOW COMPANIES HOW TO STRENGTHEN THEIR SECURITY SYSTEMS. HE EVEN DOES SOME WORK FOR THE FBI. HE'S SPEAKING IN AUCKLAND NEXT WEEK, BUT I CAUGHT UP WITH HIM BEFORE HE LEFT LA. I BEGAN BY ASKING ABOUT BEING A TEENAGE HACKER AND WHY HE DID IT? I ACTUALLY GOT INTO HACKING FOR MY LOVE OF MAGIC. AS A YOUNG BOY I LOVED PERFORMING MAGIC TRICKS TO, LIKE, FOOL MY FRIENDS. AND THEN WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, I MET THIS KID WHO COULD DO MAGIC WITH THE PHONE SYSTEM. AND HE COULD DO THINGS LIKE CALL ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD FOR FREE, HE COULD BREAK THROUGH MY CALL FORWARDING, HE COULD GET ANYONE'S UNLISTED NUMBER AND A BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF THAT JUST IMPRESSED ME AS A YOUNG 15-YEAR-OLD, AND I WANTED TO LEARN HOW TO DO THE SAME STUFF. AND I WAS ALSO A PRANKSTER. I LOVED DOING PRANKS. AND WHEN I BECAME INVOLVED IN PHONE PHREAKING, IT WAS THE SAME HOBBY THAT STEVE JOBS AND STEVE WOZNIAK HAD BACK IN THE MID-1970S, AND I USED TO DO THINGS LIKE CHANGE THE HOME PHONE OF A FRIEND TO A PAY PHONE SO WHENEVER HE OR HIS PARENTS TRIED TO MAKE A CALL, IT WOULD SAY, 'PLEASE DEPOSIT 25C.' THIS TYPE OF STUFF. AND THEN I JUST BECAME REALLY FASCINATED WITH TECHNOLOGY. AND BECAUSE MAGIC TO ME WAS LIKE HARRY HOUDINI ESCAPING FROM ANY SITUATION, I KIND OF TOOK A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT TURN AND WANTED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BYPASS SECURITY IN ALL SYSTEMS. NOT BECAUSE I WANTED ANYTHING ON THE OTHER SIDE, BUT IT WAS REALLY ALL ABOUT THE CHALLENGE, THE INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY AND THE SEDUCTION OF ADVENTURE. OK, LET'S FAST FORWARD TO YOUR COMPUTER HACKING CAREER. YOU HACKED SOME PRETTY HEAVYWEIGHT COMPANIES. DID IT OCCUR TO YOU A) WHAT YOU WERE DOING, AND B) WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE IF AND WHEN YOU WERE CAUGHT? WELL, I STARTED HACKING BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY ILLEGAL. AND WHEN I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, THE TEACHER ALLOWED ME TO TAKE A COMPUTER CLASS, AND I DIDN'T EVEN HAD THE PREREQUISITES. WHAT I SHOWED THE INSTRUCTOR WAS ALL THE COOL TRICKS I COULD DO WITH THE PHONE COMPANY, AND HE IMMEDIATELY WAIVED THE PREREQUISITES AND ALLOWED US IN THE CLASS. HE WALKED AROUND THE CLASSROOM, GOING TO EACH STUDENT'S DESK, AND I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING. AND THE TEACHER GOES, 'WAIT A SECOND, I STUCK MY NECK OUT. 'I ALLOWED YOU IN THE CLASS 'EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE PREREQUISITES, 'LIKE BEING A SENIOR, FOR EXAMPLE, 'AND YOU'RE NOT EVEN DOING THE CLASSWORK.' AND I SAID, 'WELL, I WROTE A COOLER PROGRAM.' AND HE GOES, 'THE ONE TO GET YOUR PASSWORD. 'ISN'T YOUR PASSWORD SUCH AND SUCH?' AND THE GUY'S JAW DROPPED, AND HE HAD A SMILE ON HIS FACE. HE GOES, 'HOW DID YOU DO IT?' AND I SHOWED HIM THE PROGRAM. HE PUT IT UP ON THE CHALKBOARD, SHOWED ALL THE OTHER STUDENTS AND GAVE ME 'ATTABOYS' OF HOW COOL IT WAS THAT I WAS THE HACKER IN THE CLASS. SO KEVIN MITNICK, BACK WHEN HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL, WAS TAUGHT THE ETHICS OF HACKING WAS COOL AND IT WAS NOT A CRIME. AND THEN I GOT SO HOOKED INTO DOING THIS BECAUSE OF THE FUN AND EXCITEMENT THAT WHEN THEY STARTED MAKING LAWS THAT CRIMINALISED THE STUFF, I CONTINUED DOING IT ANYWAY. WHICH WAS A MISTAKE. YOU KNOW, I REGRET BREAKING THE LAW. IT HAPPENED. IT'S IN THE PAST. AND WHAT I CAN SAY THAT IN MY MIND I WAS NEVER MALICIOUS. I NEVER TRIED TO DAMAGE ANY COMPUTER SYSTEMS OR PROFIT IN ANY WAY. I WAS MUCH MORE OF A MISCHIEVOUS HACKER. ALWAYS TRYING TO SNEAK MY WAY IN FOR THE FUN AND CHALLENGE OF IT. THIS IS YOUR STORY, BUT NOW, OF COURSE, HACKERS ARE EVERYWHERE. WHAT'S THE MOTIVATION FOR HACKERS NOWADAYS? IS IT MORE MALICIOUS? IS IT FOR FINANCIAL GAIN? OR IS THERE A DEGREE OF MISCHIEF AND SEEING IF YOU CAN DO IT. WELL, THE MOTIVATION FOR HACKING TODAY, IT'S REALLY UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL. YOU HAVE HACKERS THAT DO IT FOR THE CHALLENGE LIKE ME, BUT NOW IT'S MORE CRIMINAL HACKERS. THE ARPANET BECAME THE INTERNET AND BECAME A CONDUIT OF DOING BILLIONS OF TRANSACTIONS A DAY, AND IT'S A VERY EASY WAY FOR CRIMINALS TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY. SO YOU HAVE THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT. YOU ALSO HAVE THE HACKTIVISTS ` PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SEND A POLITICAL MESSAGE THROUGH HACKING, RIGHT. THAT'S KIND OF LIKE WIKILEAKS, FOR EXAMPLE. AND THEN YOU HAVE NATION STATES ` YOU KNOW, OTHER COUNTRIES THAT HACK INTO OTHER COUNTRIES TO OBTAIN AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE OR A MILITARY ADVANTAGE OR TO UNDERSTAND THEIR SECRETS AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY MOTIVATIONS OF HACKING TODAY. WHICH LEADS US PERFECTLY TO ALLEGATIONS THAT US OFFICIALS SAYING RUSSIA ACTUALLY HACKED INTO THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? DOES THAT SOUND LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED? I DON'T KNOW IF RUSSIA WOULD DO IT. THAT'S MORE GOVERNMENT, MILITARY, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY. DO I THINK THEY HAVE THE CAPABILITY? ABSOLUTELY. WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING IS I HAVE A COMPANY, AND COMPANIES HIRE US TO HACK INTO THEIR SYSTEMS TO FIND THEIR SECURITY HOLES. SO, ACTUALLY, WHAT WAS ILLEGAL FOR ME TO DO WHERE I GOT INTO A LOT OF TROUBLE, I ACTUALLY DO THE SAME THING TODAY BUT I GET PAID FOR IT, AND I HELP COMPANIES FIND THEIR SECURITY HOLES. AND IF I WAS TASKED FOR HACKING THE DNC, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE TOO HARD. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE HARD TO USE WHAT WE USE A SOCIAL ENGINEERING ATTACK. WHAT'S SOCIAL ENGINEERING? IT'S WHERE THE HACKER USES MANIPULATION, DECEPTION AND INFLUENCE TO TRICK SOMEONE INTO DOING SOMETHING, LIKE OPENING UP AN ATTACHMENT, CLICKING ON A LINK. AND IT ONLY TAKES ONE PERSON INSIDE THE ORGANISATION TO FALL FOR IT, SO I CAN'T IMAGINE IT WOULD BE TOO HARD IF IT WAS RUSSIA TO SEND WHAT WE CALL A SPEARFISHING EMAIL AND JUST GET SOMEONE INSIDE THE DNC TO OPEN IT AND TAKE OVER THAT PERSON'S COMPUTER AND THEN PIVOT THROUGH THAT PERSON'S COMPUTER TO GET ACCESS TO EVERYTHING. SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. SO HOW COMMON IS THIS KIND OF THING FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY WITH GOVERNMENTS? IT'S EXTREMELY COMMON WITH GOVERNMENTS. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE METHOD OF HACKING. COUNTRIES HACK EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME. THAT'S PRETTY WELL KNOWN. BUT THE SOCIAL ENGINEERING METHOD, THE METHOD OF SPEARFISHING. THIS IS A METHOD THAT'S NOT ONLY USED TO ATTACK GOVERNMENTS BUT ACTUALLY COMPANIES, BECAUSE ALL IT TAKES IS THE HACKER TO FIND ONE PERSON INSIDE THE COMPANY THAT IS DUMB ENOUGH TO OPEN UP AN ATTACHMENT OR CLICK A LINK THAT APPEARS TO BE LEGITIMATE BUT IS NOT AND ACTUALLY GIVES THE BAD GUY FULL CONTROL OF THEIR COMPUTER. SO AT THAT POINT, THE HACKER, NO MATTER IF IT'S A GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR AN INDIVIDUAL, CAN NOW ACCESS THAT PERSON'S COMPUTER AND NOW BREAK INTO EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S ON THAT COMPANY'S INTERNAL NETWORK. SO THAT'S USUALLY HOW IT GOES TODAY. SOCIAL ENGINEERING'S THE NUMBER ONE WAY IN. THE SECOND IS FINDING VULNERABILITIES IN INTERNET FACING WEB APPLICATIONS, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, ONLINE BANKING. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL SIDE OF THINGS. OF COURSE, WE'VE SEEN THE RISE AND RISE OF SOCIAL MEDIA. HOW VULNERABLE ARE PEOPLE? DO THEY REALISE HOW VULNERABLE THEY ARE TO HACKING WITH THINGS LIKE FACEBOOK, TWITTER, INSTAGRAM? WELL, WHAT I DO IN MY LIFE IS I TRY TO RAISE AWARENESS OF HOW THIS ACTUALLY WORKS, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING MAKES IT SOMETIMES EASIER TO HACK PEOPLE. LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, TWITTER. I WAS RECENTLY AT A SECURITY CONFERENCE LAST WEEK IN LAS VEGAS, AND TWO GUYS DEVELOPED THIS PROGRAM THAT CAN ANALYSE ALL YOUR TWEETS IN YOUR TIMELINE AND FIGURE OUT THE SUBJECTS THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN. IT WAS USING KIND OF LIKE AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ENGINE, AND THEN WHAT IT WOULD DO IS IT WOULD SEND YOU A TWEET THAT TALKED ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER THAT YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY FOCUSED ON BY ALL YOUR LAST TWEETS AND ACTUALLY INCLUDE A LINK THAT'S A GOOGLE LINK, AND AGAIN, IF SOMEBODY WAS FOOLISH ENOUGH TO CLICK THE LINK, IT POSSIBLY COULD EXPLOIT THEIR COMPUTER AND AGAIN GIVE THE BAD GUY FULL CONTROL, AND, YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH GAME OVER. WITH THINGS LIKE SOCIAL MEDIA AND, AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, ONLINE BANKING, WHAT IS THE ONE BIT OF ADVICE YOU WISH YOU COULD GET ACROSS TO PEOPLE TO HAVE THEM SAFEGUARD THEMSELVES FROM BEING HACKED. FOR EXAMPLE, FINANCIAL. A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THE SAME COMPUTER TO ACCESS THEIR BANKS, THEIR FINANCIAL PORTFOLIO, THEIR STOCKS, CREDIT CARDS AND THAT SORT OF THING. WHAT I RECOMMEND... PEOPLE SPEND PROBABLY 100 BUCKS A YEAR ON ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE. SO IMAGINE IF YOU COULD GO SPEND $100, $200, BUY A GOOGLE CHROMEBOOK AND USE IT IN WHAT WE CALL GUEST MODE ` SO WHEN YOU BRING UP YOUR BROWSER, YOU'RE PUTTING IT INTO GUEST MODE ` AND YOU ONLY USE THAT CHROMEBOOK TO LOG ON TO YOUR BANK, LOG ON TO YOUR CREDIT COMPANY, LOG IN TO YOUR FINANCIAL PORTFOLIO, WHEREVER THAT IS STORED, AND YOU NEVER KEEP THOSE PASSWORDS TO THOSE BANKING SITES ON YOUR OTHER COMPUTER THAT YOU USE FOR EVERYDAY SURFING, USING THAT WILL RAISE THE BAR, MAKE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR A BAD GUY TO BREAK INTO YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS, BECAUSE YOU'RE USING A SEPARATE DEVICE. AND THERE'S AN INCONVENIENCE TO THAT ` I RECOGNISE THAT ` BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF SOMEBODY HACKS YOUR COMPUTER, WHICH IS RELATIVELY EASY IN TODAY'S WORLD, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO COST YOU MAYBE A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS. FAIR TO SAY THAT A LOT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, A LOT OF GOVERNMENTS ARE STILL PLAYING CATCH-UP WITH THIS STUFF. WILL THEY EVENTUALLY CATCH UP? WILL WE SEE THE DAY WHERE IT'S JUST TOO HARD AND HACKERS ARE A THING OF THE PAST? OR ARE WE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE HACKERS? YEAH, I THINK IT'S PRETTY MUCH. I THINK IT'S RELATIVELY NEW. THE MOVIE 'WAR GAMES' CAME OUT IN '83, MY CASE WAS WELL KNOWN IN THE 1990S, AND HERE WE ARE IN 2016, AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USUALLY GO TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO GET EXPERT HELP. AND WHILE THEY ARE GETTING BETTER, THE HACKERS ARE GETTING BETTER. AND IF A HACKER HAS ENOUGH MONEY, TIME AND RESOURCES, THEY ARE GOING TO GET IN. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO KEEP THEM OUT. BUT WHAT COMPANIES AND BUSINESSES COULD DO IS THROUGH SECURITY AWARENESS, THROUGH SETTING UP PROCESSES INSIDE THE BUSINESS, THROUGH TECHNOLOGY, IS RAISE THE BAR SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH SO THE BAD GUY GOES TO SOMEBODY ELSE AND BREAKS INTO A COMPETITOR OR SOMEBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS, AND RELATIVELY IT HELPS YOU MITIGATE THAT RISK. UP NEXT, WE LOOK BACK IN POLITICAL HISTORY TO THE LAST TIME A GOVERNMENT MADE SWEEPING CHANGES TO EDUCATION. IT WAS CALLED TOMORROW'S SCHOOLS. YOU HAVE HAD A LOT TO SAY ABOUT EDUCATION. JEFF THOMSON TWEETED THAT... INCREASED POPULATION AND TAX REVENUE SHOULD LEAD TO MORE EDUCATION SPENDING? SOMETHING DOESN'T ADD UP. STEPHEN JONES EMAILED THAT... THE QUESTION IS WHETHER A FINGER IN THE DYKE HERE WILL LEAD TO A BLOWOUT THERE. THE CHILDREN IN THIS CASE ARE THE EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS. TOMORROW'S SCHOOLS, THE REFORMS INTRODUCED BY DAVID LANGE'S LABOUR GOVERNMENT IN 1989, BROUGHT ABOUT A NEW AUTONOMY FOR OUR SCHOOLS. BOARDS OF TRUSTEES WERE SET UP TO GOVERN SCHOOLS, AND FOR THE FIRST TIME SCHOOLS BECAME RESPONSIBLE FOR HIRING THEIR OWN TEACHERS. BUT THE CHANGES PROVED CONTROVERSIAL, AS THIS REPORT BY ROB NEALE IN 1989 SHOWS. THE CRITICISM FROM AORERE COLLEGE IS THAT THE TEST BUDGETS ARE VAGUE AND SPARSE, SO THE FIGURE IT'S BEEN GIVEN ` JUST OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ` IS OF LIMITED HELP. THE OPERATIONAL GRANT THAT WE RECEIVED IS IN A LUMP SUM. IT'S IN FOUR OR FIVE BROAD CATEGORIES. WE'RE NOT SURE OF THE FORMULA THAT THOSE FIGURES WERE ARRIVED AT. ALREADY THE BOARD OF THIS SCHOOL IS MEETING WEEKLY TO WRITE A CHARTER. BUT THE BUDGET DETAIL IS WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WILL BE ENOUGH AND THAT IT COMPARES FAIRLY WITH OTHER SCHOOLS. BUT THE PART OF THE BUDGET THAT WILL MOST DIRECTLY DEAL WITH FAIRNESS WON'T BE KNOWN FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS. THIS IS THE TOP-UP THAT WILL GO TO SCHOOLS BECAUSE OF THE NON-EUROPEAN OR SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS OF A HIGH PROPORTION OF THEIR STUDENTS. EQUITY MEANS UNEQUAL RESOURCES. AND THAT, I THINK, IN A GENERAL SENSE, IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD. IT WILL BE IRONIC, HOWEVER, NOW THAT, FOR INSTANCE, IN MY ELECTORATE THERE WILL BE SCHOOLS WHO WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ALLOCATION OF MINISTRY MONEY THAN A SCHOOL IN A WELL-HEELED AREA WILL BE. BUT EVEN THOSE WHO WELCOME PROVISIONS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS DON'T LIKE HAVING TO DESCRIBE THEIR COMMUNITY OR TO APPLY FOR THE GRANT. I AM NOT AT ALL HAPPY ABOUT HAVING TO PUT A CASE THAT INVOLVES A DESCRIPTION OF THE AVONDALE COLLEGE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL OR MAORI/POLYNESIAN POPULATION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SPECIAL NEEDS SHOULD BE EQUATED WITH THE STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL RATHER THAN THE, UH, SPECIAL NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. WHAT'S CLEAR IS THE EQUITY ISSUE STILL HAS TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE TOMORROW'S SCHOOLS BECOMES A REALITY. WAKA HUIA IS NEXT. REMEMBER, Q+A REPEATS AFTER 'LOVE CHILD' AT 11.45PM TONIGHT. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. THOSE WERE THE QUESTIONS AND THOSE WERE THE ANSWERS. THAT'S Q+A. SEE YOU NEXT SUNDAY MORNING AT 9. CAPTIONS BY TRACEY DAWSON AND ALEX WALKER. CAPTIONS WERE MADE POSSIBLE WITH FUNDING FROM NZ ON AIR.