Mapp Wayne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12192] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Minister purports to say that this bill is all about some narrow purpose of avoiding paying teachers who are on strike. Certainly that is in the bill. But there is a much wider objective here and the Minister well knows—because he has been listening to the debate at least some of the time—that National’s objection is much more fundamental. It is about the philosophy of the bill—of centralising the control of negotiations back to the State sector reinforcing the power of monopolistic unions and the control of the Minister at each and every stage over negotiations. That is the intent of the bill—the real intent. It may be disguised as having something to do with strikes. Unfortunately New Zealand First has fallen for that but it has ignored the real motivation. The real motivation is that centralisation of power. 
I say to New Zealand First and United Future members that they should broaden their vision. They should look more broadly when they read a bill of this nature because the real intent here has to be—I imagine at least—contrary to the philosophy of both those parties. Surely it is the case that both United Future and New Zealand First would understand the importance of community control. The Greens are being consistent. The one thing I have always understood about the Green Party is that it does believe in decentralisation and community control. So from time to time it is not surprising that the Green Party ends up alongside National and ACT. It may be from a different philosophical base but the outcome is the same—giving autonomy to people in the community. 
We come from the perspective of freedom—the freedom of people to negotiate their own contracts freed from the strictures and powers of the State. I appreciate that the Green Party comes from a different philosophical perspective although perhaps if one digs deep enough it is not that different in reality. I presume that even the Green Party believes in freedom. On the other hand United Future and New Zealand First have hog-tied themselves to a hapless and failing Labour Government—a Government that can only ever find the answer in State control and the power of the big unions. That narrow and declining base in New Zealand is the Government’s support base. 
Members will be interested to know that the number of New Zealanders joining unions is going down all the time. The only bastion of unionism left now is in the powerful State sector unions like the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute. It is not surprising that so many members of the Labour Party caucus have that as their origin—like the Minister himself in fact. He comes from that union background. So they are always going to be looking for opportunities to centralise to increase the power of the State thereby increasing the power of unions. 
All that is against the interests of teachers children and the community. There is a different way to deal with this and it is reflected in the National Party minority report. We believe that the more appropriate approach is flexible employment agreements at board level. After all boards are at least in theory the employers of teachers. We say we should give the boards real power. We should let them be the negotiators and let them have the funding—which I know Mr Donnelly actually supports—so that the true negotiation the true employment contract is between the board and its employees the teachers. In that situation we will be treating people with respect. 
It is inappropriate that teachers march up and down the streets as a form of old-fashioned industrial protest. It is not my image of what modern professionals do. Modern professionals negotiate directly either by way of an individual contract or by way of site contracts for want of a better term and the negotiation occurs at that level. When it does there are no strikes. Frankly I believe the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute demean the professionalism of their members. It is not the way professional people conduct themselves. If teachers want to be regarded as professionals—and I am sure they do—they will move towards modern negotiating systems. They will free themselves from the strictures of centralised State control and negotiate directly. That is something I am looking for in contemporary modern approaches to industrial relations. 
This bill sends completely the wrong signals. It empowers the State it empowers unions and increases their power. Mr Ogilvy would do well to look more at the deeper meaning of a bill like this. If he did so his party would be voting against it because it surely cannot be part of the philosophy of either United Future or New Zealand First to give more power to the unions. 
I want to conclude on this point. This bill might be a small bill like the previous bill but within them they contain the deepest philosophical divide this House has to deal with. That is the nature of the relationship between the State and the people. For Labour it will always be a case of increase the power of the State and reduce the power of the people. For National—and I would like to think for other sensible parties of the centre and centre-right—the reverse would apply. We believe in empowering communities and individuals to make their own agreements and to reduce the power of the State. In 18 months’ time or maybe less New Zealanders will get to make that clear choice because we on this side of the House will be offering that choice. Labour I guess will be offering its centralised State control prescription. I am confident New Zealanders will make the right choice for freedom.