Peters Jim: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12190] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and to give support to the Hon Brian Donnelly who is our party’s education spokesperson on what is a fairly simple straightforward tidying-up bill. With regard to the title although the bill is still termed the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) it came back to the House in a much-revised form and much stronger than the bill that the Education and Science Committee first saw. A very quick review of the commentary tells us that the committee has clarified and made considerable changes to the bill. It is a much stronger and more work-worthy bill than the bill that members first saw. 
In the course of the debate on this bill a few issues have been traversed. The first is that there is an aspect of choice. I say to the ACT party that in the 1980s I was active in looking at the principle of vouchers and seeing whether they were a feasible way of funding. I say to Dr Mapp that I am very interested that the National Party has some brave new funding device—I will be very interested to hear what it is—that would give greater self-governing autonomy to the boards. I want to know whether it would be comprehensive; whether it would go beyond salaries and cover maintenance and all the other issues that schools have to contend with in the present day. I also say to the Hon Lockwood Smith that the issue of what makes a good school has always been the same—it has not changed. A good school is one in which the teachers students and parents are part of a community that deals with the issues of learning of building a learning community on a close intimate basis. That has not changed. 
Nothing will change in this regard because of the drive or purpose of this bill. This is a simple administrative bill that gives some clarity to a situation we faced in 2002 whereby boards of trustees did not always exercise prudence with regard to making deductions from teacher salaries. Some teachers could go on strike take rolling strike stoppages and not have their pay deducted for non-performance in the classroom. That is what the issue is. I commend the Minister of Education for picking up an anomaly. That administrative anomaly is being corrected and I see no great need for the intense debate that some parties in the Chamber have carried through. 
On behalf of New Zealand First and particularly the Hon Brian Donnelly I say to National ACT and other parties that we are more than happy—at any time in a proper forum—to tease out and conduct a debate upon what represents a sound educational base for our children. But this has been an unusual occasion in terms of the elements that have been propounded on what is really a small administrative matter. Again Post Primary Teachers Association members would not feel they should be recompensed a day’s wages that they had not earned and I believe that that aspect has been taken to mind. On behalf of New Zealand First and particularly our party’s education spokesperson I support the bill’s third reading.