State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12154] 
State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. This is somewhat more controversial legislation. It essentially addresses the question of whether teachers should be paid when they are on strike. It is the view of the Government that they should not be paid and I expect there will be some discussion of that in the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) 
to be read today. It is interesting that we are speaking about this bill straight after debate on the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill during which we talked a lot about constitutional decisions being made and running roughshod over them. That has happened previously and we will be inspecting this bill particularly during its Committee stage as to whether that has happened in this case. It is highly likely; if so members will hear what the National Party feels about that. 
The bill was examined by the Education and Science Committee. The committee recommended that it be passed with various amendments and I look forward to discussing some of those. The State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) makes amendments to the State Sector Act and interestingly to the Education Act. The main focus of the bill is to address problems that apparently arise from the fact that the State Services Commissioner’s ability to negotiate collective agreements is currently compromised by boards of trustees retaining all those usual rights. Throughout the country we have seen boards of trustees wanting to act independently and with a large degree of autonomy when it comes to the employment of their staff. That is because schools like a particular flavour. They may wish to employ people who provide that flavour in the school. It might be a focus on Maori education and there is nothing wrong with that. It might be a focus on particular technical areas. When I went to school there were woodwork metalwork and technical drawing classes—those kinds of subjects. It might be a focus on learning the English language and so on. As well as providing a general education across the curriculum a school might specialise in particular areas. 
Boards of trustees have rights duties and powers relating to them as employers for all sorts of purposes. The difficulty of course is that the exercise of those rights duties and powers meant that the State Services Commissioner could not easily negotiate collective agreements. When those agreements were being negotiated of course the parties the commissioner was negotiating with would always come back to the issue that under the Education Act boards of trustees had those responsibilities. So in that negotiating process they were torn between not only two Acts but various parties—and rightly so. 
 So this bill is brought about to empower the commissioner to exercise the related powers of an employer when negotiating collective agreements. It requires the union bargaining for a collective agreement to give prior notice of industrial action and that seems fair enough to us. We do not want to see strikes in this country. We certainly do not want to see the strikes that we saw in 2002 when teachers in schools all over the country went out on strike one after another and kids were sent home. If that is going to happen—and it certainly happened under the Labour Government and is something that we did not see in the latter years of the National Government—we need to see the unions giving prior notice of that action. That seems fine with us. 
The bill also empowers the commissioner to suspend striking employees by notifying the relevant union rather than advising each employee separately. This type of issue is where we part with the Labour Party in supporting this bill and it is why we will not be voting for it. The National Party will be opposing it. We find it appalling that the commissioner in suspending striking employees has to notify the relevant union rather than the employee. Imagine if that happened in the private workforce—outside the public sector—whereby a business owner who was laying off or employing staff did not inform that staff member of the job he or she had just won or lost or inform the staff member about the job how it was going its continuation its progress and how the duties under that employment may develop. The owner would not talk to the individual involved—the person who woke up every morning and went to work at 8 o’clock and left at 5 o’clock after putting in a good day’s work—but instead he or she would notify the union. It raises all sorts of concerns with us. It tells us that the Minister in charge of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) has a greater appreciation for the union bureaucracy and a need to inform unions than he does for the individual worker who might be affected by any decision in the workplace. The example I used in this case was when boards of trustees had issues with regard to their rights duties and powers. That ran against what the commissioner was able to do. 
There are also amendments to clarify the commissioner’s powers during a negotiation. The commissioner is able to cover boards of trustees for the costs of damages and some amendments are brought about by that. The commissioner will cover the costs of boards of trustees for damages arising out of the exercise of powers conferred on the commissioner. In other words if the commissioner makes a decision rightly or wrongly costs are therefore put upon boards of trustees. They should not be penalised by having to pay those costs. The commissioner through these particular amendments will reimburse those costs to the board of trustees—and rightly so. There is no reason at all why decisions made by one party should penalise another. 
The employees must give sufficient notice of a strike and I spoke about that earlier. Under this bill the boards are also obligated to provide information on a strike and there will be amendments to clarify redundancy provisions. The National Party will oppose this bill. During the Committee stage we will certainly be discussing in more detail why that is the case. I bring the House’s attention to the minority view which I did not go over but which is in the commentary. It summarises a little bit about how the New Zealand National Party views the bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 The House is considering the second reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and the report of the Education and Science Committee. It seems to me that this is quite a useful bill that clarifies the role of teachers as employees the role that boards of trustees have the role of the Secretary for Education and how the unions that represent teachers fit into the very unique employment arrangement that teachers have. I think this will be a useful bill for the sector and I support its passage through the House. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I will comment that in terms of the report back the process of this particular bill through the Education and Science Committee was probably the best that I have ever seen. The select committee as a whole took the bill and looked at how to make it work. It looked at the areas that were problematic within the bill and at what it could do to improve upon the bill. As a result of that process the bill was quite monstered at the select committee stage. Quite large sections were modified and in fact removed during that period of time. 
What the bill set out to do—and it went beyond its initial intention—was to overcome a really anomalous situation with regard to the teaching profession over the negotiation of the conditions of and payment for employment. Teachers are employed by boards of trustees but the boards of trustees do not negotiate teachers’ salaries and conditions of employment. There is a national collective and by law it comes under the State Services Commission which is the agent of the Government that negotiates those matters. The States Services Commission has delegated its responsibility to the Ministry of Education as it has the right to do. So we have the Ministry of Education negotiating the salaries and conditions of employment of teachers and going through all the industrial actions when it is the boards of trustees that employ teachers and have the rights of employers. That has led to a number of circumstances that I think most people would regard as pretty unsavoury. 
For example in order for teachers who go on strike—as is their right to go on strike through industrial negotiations—to have their pay deducted which one would conclude was logical in any industrial setting the boards of trustees have to write to the Ministry of Education and tell it who went on strike. At certain schools teachers have put pressure on their boards and said the boards should show them goodwill under those circumstances and should not write to the Ministry of Education. We had one situation during a wildcat strike where the teachers threatened to go on strike again if the school deducted their salaries from them. Pretty obviously that is a totally impossible situation to operate in. It certainly does not make it fair for either the Government or the teachers to bargain in good faith. If people can withdraw their labour at will but also get paid for it then we do not have a level playing field. 
Mark Peck 
: The old freezing works would have done well wouldn’t they! 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Would they ever! The purpose of this bill is to try to overcome that particular issue but it has a corollary benefit. One of the tactics used by secondary teachers both in 1996 and in the most recent round of strike action was to roster off certain classes. They would say that on a certain day they would not teach third-form classes across the whole country. So in many cases the boards of trustees were forced into a situation of telling parents to keep their children at home. Of course the problem was how to deduct the teachers’ pay. If that occurred on a Thursday on a certain timetable we would not know the classes that Mr Black or Mrs Brown was teaching. One teacher may have two or three third-form classes and another may have one. Schools may have 45-minute periods or hour-long periods. In the end it just became too administratively difficult for the boards of trustees even to send the information in to the ministry. Consequently there was a mechanism that teachers could keep going indefinitely. 
But there was a downside to that particular mechanism which was not recognised by very many: when parents kept their children at home they were breaking the law. The law states that when a school is open for instruction parents have to ensure their children are in attendance. How can we put parents into that situation? Pretty obviously the Government was not going to chase parents up and fine them $15 for every day their children were not in attendance. But many many parents do not like the idea that they are in breach of the law when they are forced into that situation. So the bill attempts to overcome those particular anomalies. 
There is another anomaly and it is that schools by law have to be open for a certain number of half days—380 half days for secondary schools and I think it is now 394 half days for primary schools. If the teachers go on strike pretty obviously schools cannot be open for instruction. Therefore boards of trustees would not be able to meet their legal requirement to keep schools open for instruction for a certain number of days without asking the teachers to come back for an extra day at the end of the year. Once again that really attacks some of the fundamental industrial rights of teachers as employees. What the bill does—and I think this is a very positive move—is to state that if the teachers are on strike then it is deemed that the school is open for instruction. 
But then the Minister tried to say that if we had too many strikes that would cut into education too badly so he wanted to have the reserve power to be able to extend the school year as long as he liked. That raised some questions as to the power the Government was trying to accrue to itself which no other employer would have been able to have. So if teachers went on strike for 3 or 4 days the Minister could have just said to count one of those days as a school day but the extra 2 days would have to be worked at the end of the school year. If teachers went on strike for even longer than that we could have the school year lasting until past Christmas time. The Minister was asking for a draconian power and the select committee did a very good job of arguing that there was no purpose in keeping that particular clause in the bill. It flew in the face of fairness around industrial relationships for teachers. 
A number of other issues came up as a result of this particular bill. Once again it is believed that these are improvements. When the Employment Relations Act went through one of the issues that came up was how much notice a union should have to give before its members went on strike. When it came to schoolchildren there was the real problem of getting the information back to the parents that the teachers were going on strike at a certain time. During the last round of strikes students in Auckland were stranded. Parents did not know that bus drivers were going on strike and there was no way of getting the students home. This legislation ensures that there has to be 3 days’ notice of any strike action. We believe that is fair. We believe it is fair that schools get that information in a timely fashion in order to be able to get the information to parents and ensure that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
The final issue that we need to talk about is the power that the bill planned to give to the Minister to punish boards of trustees if they did not do what they were supposed to do. Boards of trustees are now to be required to send information to the Ministry of Education about all the teachers who did not go on strike rather than the other way round. The ones who did not go on strike can be paid in a rightful fashion. But the Minister tried to give himself unlimited powers to be able to punish boards of trustees that did not comply with that requirement. The punishment would have been to make deductions from their grants. The people who were going to be hurt by that would have been the students themselves because there would have been less money available to them for their particular studies. It is fortunate that the select committee was able to argue cogently and as a group that that was an unnecessary power. The Minister already has powers to punish or penalise boards of trustees that are recalcitrant and he certainly did not need the sorts of draconian powers that would have flown in the face of a board’s responsibility to ensure that students are getting the best possible education. 
There was another little issue around technical redundancies that required the select committee to do some tidying-up. Although the committee did not change the basic principle or premise of the bill it certainly needed to do a lot of tidying-up of the wording. I think the wording that has come back to the House is far far clearer in stating what the Government is attempting to do to ensure that people do not double dip when there is loss of jobs as a result of the merger or closure of schools. 
Finally I say once again a very big thankyou and give my congratulations to the select committee for what I consider to be a very fine job on this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will not be supporting the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). We were pleased to see the changes that were made to the bill in the Education and Science Committee because the bill as originally proposed was absolutely appalling. It was a very clear indication on the part of the Minister and the Government that they would bypass the collective agreement processes by the use of legislation. It is our view that the Government is using its position as a legislator to get out of its obligations as an employer. The Greens are entirely satisfied with the concept that those who are on strike are not paid for the time they are striking. In no way does our objection to this bill disrupt that fundamental tenet of the right to strike. But the whole of the bill in our view is stained with the intention of the Minster to avoid his obligations as an employer by the use of legislation to bypass the collective agreements that take so much time and effort for all the parties involved to work through. 
All credit must go to the select committee which took a great deal of care over the bill and took out some of its worst excesses. For example the Wages Protection Act now applies though the ministry had tried to avoid that legislation. There is now no ability for the commissioner to directly deduct money from schools’ operations grants—for being naughty schools—if they fail to inform the ministry of those teachers who are not on strike. Another example is that the bill originally proposed that the Minister would be able to extend the number of days in a school year to make up for those days where schools lost teaching time because of industrial action. The officials at the time tried very hard to argue that despite the fact that they wanted to extend the number of days so that teachers would be required to work longer if they did take industrial action the bill did not disturb the fundamental principle of the right to strike. That of course was ridiculous and the select committee did a very good job in taking out those provisions. 
But there remain some very serious concerns about the redundancy clauses in the bill and that for the Greens is one of the biggest issues. In our view those clauses are really about the Minister trying to remedy the worst effects of the network review school closure process that is currently under way. The network reviews are a huge community issue; there has been enormous outrage from all sectors. The community has worked very hard to prevent those unnecessary school closures and it has succeeded to some extent with the moratorium. But none the less there are still some closures set to proceed. This bill is an attempt to avoid the redundancy processes for those teachers in the schools likely to close. We do not believe that the Government is honouring its collective agreement with the teachers unions so we are opposed to that provision in particular. We consider it to be completely unfair that teachers will be forced to accept positions in new schools when they are directly affected by the closure of their school in situations where the Minister decides it is an equivalent employment position. 
In the current situation when schools merge jobs are guaranteed for teachers. Where there are school closures teachers are allowed to take redundancy if they choose not to take employment in other schools that are still operating. That is an important factor of the principle of choice for those who are employed. But this bill will change that process because it will mean that where there is a closure teachers will be forced to take equivalent positions rather than redundancy. 
This bill does not consider the process and the decisions around what is an equivalent position. Teachers choose to work in a particular school because of the culture of that school its philosophy its staff and its management structure. That is a crucial decision that teachers as employees make when they choose where they go to work. This bill eliminates that choice. It undermines the good-faith bargaining that underpins the whole process around collective employment agreements. 
The Greens will not support a bill that is as anti-teacher as this bill. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports this bill because we do not think it is fair to put boards of trustees in the kinds of difficulties and circumstances they found themselves in during particularly the negotiating round for the secondary school teachers contract in 2002. That put a tremendous amount of pressure on the entire system. The purpose of this bill as we see it in summation is really to attempt to take the boards of trustees out of the equation and to transfer their employer functions back to the State Services Commission and also to tidy up some arrangements when it comes to the question of school closures programmes and mergers which are current around New Zealand at the present time. Those two things emerged as part of the rationale for this bill. As has been pointed out the bill as it was presented to us initially had a number of hooks and snares in it that would have been counterproductive to what the Government intended and/or the teachers would receive as a result and certainly what the students and pupils at schools would incur. The purpose of the bill is really to make things a lot easier and happen more quickly. 
We heard submissions from the main institutions and supports for teachers and students around the country. The New Zealand School Trustees Association presented its views on the bill as it stood and brought out a number of issues that needed clarity. The Education and Science Committee put them into effect on its behalf in a very clear way. I want to touch on one or two of those as we go through even during the Committee stage. The Post Primary Teachers Association also submitted quite strongly with regard to collective bargaining; it wanted to ensure that whatever goes into this bill does not affect the whole covenant it has with the State Services Commission. The same could be said about the submissions made by the New Zealand Educational Institute for primary teachers. It and the New Zealand Law Society acted as a group to ensure that any changes we make to this bill are at least in line with current law and there are not any conflicts in it. I appreciated the input by the submitters. As a result and as the chair of the select committee the Hon Brian Donnelly mentioned the bill has come out looking like given the nature of the Government’s own position it will make things work a lot easier. 
Sometime later on I would like to address the issue that—it is one of the contradictions of this bill—because of centralised bargaining and collective agreements with teachers the Government has got itself into trouble and this bill is an endeavour to untangle that. It is not a position that United Future members would have been in favour of. Many boards were very sympathetic towards the teachers’ claims in the last strike in 2002. We know that the State Services Commission is responsible for collective agreements with teachers. The boards of trustees did not know who to lock out and who not to lock out in that particular strike which went on as we know for a protracted period. This bill really focuses on untangling that and on the whole it does so. There was a lot of inconsistency among and across schools as to whether teachers were facing financial consequences for their actions and that created quite a lot of inequity among teachers as to who was getting paid and who was not. Of course in the sort of befuddle that took place in 2002 with secondary teachers there were a lot of consequences in terms of children missing out on education. Quite honestly that is why this bill has to come in—to guarantee that they do not suffer as a result of any further strikes in the future. It sorts out who gets locked out who gets their pay docked and who does not. 
The amendments to the bill—and I will have a look at one or two of those—are very very useful in that they ensure that the difficult and almost impossible original bill can now be functional and work properly. It is very very important to note that the majority of the select committee saw fit to throw out a whole provision that tied people down to irregularities that would obviously have come up when a strike was on. As has been referred to earlier one of the provisions that was taken out allowed the Minister to deduct from a board of trustees any amount of money the Minister thought fit. With the employer function being moved from the boards of trustees to the State Services Commission it no longer is an issue and the Minister cannot just do that at his will. 
United Future members were happy for the bill at the end of the first reading to go to the select committee in order to sort out these difficulties and in our minds they have been sorted out. We are most happy to see this bill progress. United Future supports this second reading. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). I do not have voting power on the Education and Science Committee because of ACT’s disadvantage under the situation at the moment but I did sit on the select committee and tracked this bill through. 
This legislation is another nail in the coffin for Tomorrow’s Schools it is another nail in the coffin for parental representation and it is another nail in the coffin for boards of trustees having some say in how their schools are run. When this bill first came to the select committee it was one of the most draconian pieces of legislation I had seen. Members in this House have praised the bill and said it is workable and will tidy up the situation. It will not tidy up the situation. Yes it has been toned down a bit but only in one respect—that is the removal of the powers of the State Services Commissioner to deduct funding from a school’s operations grant. That was what the Minister of Education originally wanted to do. He wanted to punish boards of trustees as he saw it—punish them by deducting money from the schools’ operations grants. Who would be the loser in that? The children would be the losers in that. The children and learning will be the losers from this legislation. 
 We heard from a United Future member that the measure makes the situation more equitable because now all boards of trustees will be forced to behave in the same way. What on earth is equitable about forcing sameness on every board of trustees? I was on a board of trustees when those strikes were going on. Our board of trustees discussed the issue of whether we would pay our teachers. We discussed it in a democratic way we voted in a democratic way and we decided not to pay them. But we remunerated them in other ways and we had the freedom to do that. Other boards of trustees decided they would pay their teachers. Fine we did not have a problem with that. It was up to the board of trustees of each school because that board had been elected by the parents of children at that school to talk for them. If parents do not like what a board does they can vote out those board members and get new ones to do what they want. They do not vote for their board members to be dictated to on how they behave by the State Services Commissioner. 
That is what this legislation does. It vests in the State Services Commissioner the powers of boards of trustees regarding teachers’ pay. It is a typical example of a collectivist Government digging itself into a hole and trying desperately to dig itself out. When it removed the ability for schools to have bulk funding it got itself into this disastrous situation. The most sensible thing that this Government could do which Governments in Western democracies all around the world are doing—it is not radical; it is not gasp material—is to let parents chose; to devolve the funding to the boards so that the communities in consultation with the teachers and the parents can decide. 
But this Government does not want to let even the teachers choose. It will now take choice away from the teachers as well. It was extraordinary on the Education and Science Committee. I actually remarked that it was rare for me to find myself on the same side as the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute. They opposed this bill. They saw it as draconian. They saw it as removing the last vestige of choice from teachers. They will no longer be able to choose which school they teach in under this legislation. If teachers are put by this Government in a situation where their school is closed down or merged they will not be able to choose which school they teach in or they will lose their compensation. It is not their fault that schools close or merge. They do not ask to be put in that situation. They should be compensated. They have a right taken away from them a property right if one likes—their property right to earn money. They have that right taken away from them by the State and the State should compensate them. But teachers will not be able to be compensated now unless they adhere to the draconian terms that have been put in this bill. We will look at those terms in more detail later but if teachers do not adhere to the directives in this bill if they refuse an offer of a job—a so-called equivalent position which is very loosely defined—in a replacement school or another school directly affected by the closure or merger they also lose their redundancy. So this Government not only does not want parents to choose; it will not let boards of trustees choose any more and it will not let teachers choose either. 
I am shocked to the core that United Future—the family-friendly party—is voting for this legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] We might not always agree with the Greens but at least they have principles. As I said the loser here is education. It is patronising for that member to say that members of boards of trustees were put in a difficult position of not being able to decide whether they should pay the teachers when they went on strike. That is why people decide to become members of boards of trustees; they have to make difficult decisions. Every time they have a meeting they make difficult decisions about whether they will raise $120000 for a swimming pool or an arts centre. Is United Future going to take those choices off boards too because parents ordinary people cannot decide? Does it think only politicians and bureaucrats can make choices for parents because parents do not know even if they are elected by other parents to be on a board of trustees? 
In Florida even the liberal lefty press is now coming out in favour of a voucher system whereby funding is not centrally controlled as it is here—and further so under this legislation. It is devolved to the students. Research has shown that that especially benefits children from very poor families on very low incomes because they are given the opportunity to choose a school. Even if we went back to bulk funding for just those schools that want it they would be able to make decisions themselves over whether they pay the teachers when they go on strike. Sure the principle of withdrawing one’s labour is that one’s remuneration is withdrawn too; that is the basic principle. But so what if another board of trustees wants to go against that principle and decides that because its members sympathise with their teachers who have gone out on strike it wants to continue paying them? It should keep that choice. This bill is a sad day for learning in New Zealand and the ACT party is vehemently opposed to it. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 Can I say to United Future that being mauled by Deborah Coddington is like being mauled by a toothless sheep. Until that particular member learns to pay her tax bills and there are certain other words that come to mind about her party such as “Pipi Foundation” and “Pipitea Street” her party has no credibility— 
Darren Hughes 
: It was an electorate office. 
MARK PECK 
: Well it was the electorate office. This particular bill is quite a simple bill and I do agree with my colleague Mr Brownlee that—[ 
Interruption 
] Not Brownlee! I tell Mr Donnelly that I take it back. I do apologise for that. I do not know whose reputation suffers the most with that particular comment but I do take it back. But can I say that despite what was said by the person whom we do not comment on because her speeches are like being mauled by a sheep this particular bill makes sure that some of the industrial relations issues around the operation of schools are dealt with. I interjected on Mr Donnelly’s speech that the freezing workers would have very much loved a provision whereby they got paid for going on strike. No worker worth his or her salt expects to be paid when on strike. Workers go on strike— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Some of them do! 
MARK PECK 
: Well I have a very strong view about that as a unionist—a very strong view. Those who do go on strike expect that for standing up for their principles they will lose wages in the process. That is part of the deal. The other side of that coin of course is the right of the employer to lock out which I think deals with the issue of the confusion that Mr Brownlee—I am sorry; Mr Donnelly—was talking about. I do really apologise to the member for that. Mr Donnelly was talking earlier about the employer having the right when these particular problems crop up to lock out. That is just the normal ebb and flow of industrial relations—end of story. 
Then I come to the crocodile tears shed about the school reviews and the redundancy provisions. They are exactly that—crocodile tears. If employees are offered a position in a merging school or in a new school in the area and thereby are not disadvantaged—if they can continue to be employed if their service within the industry is not affected if they can maintain all the other positions that they are entitled to within their particular contracts—what is wrong with that? If employees decide after having been offered a position not to move on to it they make their own decision not to take up an offer of employment. I do not care how good any particular tribunal or court in this land is: at that point that is a resignation—end of story. 
It seems to me that the bill tidies up quite nicely an area within the State sector legislation that is a little untidy at the moment. There is no shock or horror about this bill. It is a good bill that tidies up a situation that should have been tidied up a long time ago. In future when teachers do decide to go on strike over matters of great importance to the education industry they know that the price of principle is their salary for that period of time. I have absolutely no problem with that because it means that both sides of the industrial dispute compete on a level playing field. When dealing with industrial relations I would have thought that was something ACT would agree with. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 If it were not so sad to hear Mr Peck trying to climb into Deborah Coddington over her speech a few minutes ago it would be amusing. Deborah Coddington is known up and down this country as someone who stands for principle. I do not think that Mr Peck is known for anything. Mr Peck is so bitter and twisted because even Mr Benson-Pope was promoted into Cabinet over him. Mr Peck has been here for quite a few years and is so bitter that he has not made it into the Labour Cabinet. If he chooses to attack someone of principle like Deborah Coddington he is making a grave mistake. 
I now come to the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). This is a very important issue. No one can pretend that the arrangements for negotiating our teachers’ salaries and the authority of boards of trustees with respect to their employment have been satisfactory for a number of years. No one can claim that the way the system worked in the past has been totally satisfactory. 
When I was Minister the way the system worked caused me a lot of concern. However to hear Mr Ogilvy from United Future—is that who it was? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Dr Ogilvy. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Dr Ogilvy from United Future said that this bill sorted things out. The problem is that a party like United Future in this Parliament has no knowledge of the background to the payment of teachers’ salaries the role of the States Services Commissioner or the reforms of  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
. To pretend that this bill sorts things out satisfactorily is a travesty. If this bill is passed the losers will be our children and families—the people United Future claims it cares about. This bill causes children to be the losers. I invite Dr Ogilvy to think about the issue a bit more and about what goes on in the schooling system in this country. 
There is an issue around the role of boards of trustees as employers and the role of the State Services Commissioner as a negotiator of collective contracts. But to re-empower the centre—to empower the State Services Commissioner more—is not the way to solve our problems. The big problem in schooling today is that our best people do not go into teaching because our best teachers are not rewarded. The great collective contract means that our poorer teachers are paid far more than they are worth and our best teachers are not paid anything like what they are worth—and everyone knows it. 
That is the problem of the big collective contract when employing our teachers. When the State Services Commissioner is negotiating employment arrangements the big State-sector union will always be on the other side. The Government had the opportunity to do something for the schoolchildren of this country and make the amendments needed. 
I accept that the status quo was not satisfactory. School boards of trustees are officially the employers yet the State Services Commissioner negotiates the collective contract on their behalf. This Labour-led Government has progressively pulled power back from boards of trustees and recentralised it and this is just another step in that process. However boards of trustees should have been empowered to become full employers as they have now had the experience. 
When  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 was established in 1989-90—in fact the previous Labour Government put it in place but as Minister I had to start making it work—maybe it could have been argued that the new boards of trustees new in those roles needed a period of time before they acquired the full role of employer including employment negotiations. It was always intended that ultimately boards of trustees would have the role of running their schools. 
If we go back to the origin of the whole  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 reform the Picot task force recommended that all our schools be bulk funded. One of the reasons the task force recommended that was that ultimately it made sense for our schools to employ their staff so that they could reward outstanding teachers and manage their schools in the interests of the children of their schools. This legislation is just another step back from what the Picot task force recommended. It is a step back from the  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 reforms. It is all part of the recentralisation of education under this Labour-led Government. 
United Future of all parties should not be endorsing that. Recentralisation and bureaucratic control of schooling is not in the interests of our children. United Future stands in this House and parrots on about the importance of families and children and has the chance to vote against regressive legislation that takes that away. Clause 6 states that our teachers come first and our children last. If the teachers go on strike the union comes first and children come last. If the union goes on strike the children miss out. 
At least we should give Trevor Mallard some credit. He wanted to make sure that children did not miss out. But Mr Donnelly from New Zealand First and his select committee said: “No we can’t have a situation where the children come first. The union must come first so they can take as many days on strike as they like”—and children will miss out on their education. This country has had enough of that. This country has to start standing up for children and not for the big teacher unions. That is what this is all about. Far from recentralising the whole negotiation of employment arrangements for teachers this legislation should be all about giving schools the opportunity to reward outstanding teachers because we have great teachers. 
Every bit of research done on schooling shows that an important element making for a successful school is an outstanding principal. Schools used to be able to sack bad principals when their contracts expired. They cannot do that any more. This Labour-led Government has stopped that with its Employment Relations Act. Schools cannot have fixed-term contracts any more and they cannot get rid of bad principals. The other bit of research shows us that outstanding teachers make a difference. 
This bill will make it even harder. It is another step away from enabling schools to employ their teachers in ways that enable them to reward outstanding teachers and deal with teachers who under-perform. When a school has an under-performing teacher—and we have plenty of them—again it is the children who suffer. Labour and United Future claim they care about children yet every time a legislative issue comes up they take the union side; they do not take the children’s side. This bill was a chance to demonstrate that the children actually matter to United Future. 
There is no need for this bureaucratic nonsense. It would have been very possible to give greater power to school boards of trustees. We could have had legislation by which boards ceded that power if they wished to the State Services Commissioner but at least put in place a mechanism that was originally envisaged by Picot and the whole schools reform process to really enable schools to do something for their children. The principal and the teachers are the most important bit. The skill of those teachers matters and this bill takes it all away from our boards of trustees the parents the community and the teachers involved who want to make our schools a better place. This bill just recentralises power in the State Services Commissioner. 
No one can say that I do not know what I am talking about because I was Minister for almost 6 years and Opposition spokesperson for 3 years. No one else in this House has been involved in the politics of education longer than I have. Those comments are made from hard experience. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 It is very interesting to hear the comments made by a former Minister of Education—a Minister who was not very fondly remembered by those of us who were practitioners in the education service at the time. 
Having been a member of Parliament at the time of the Picot report and involved in those discussions I have to say the former Minister’s memory has been a little selective. He conveniently overlooked the very good provision in the bill that requires the union bargaining for a collective agreement to give prior notice of industrial action. I would have thought that a very fair provision because it takes account of the notice that parents and children need if there is to be any disruption. Surely that is much better than any other arrangement. To do what Dr Lockwood Smith suggested would be to take away the normal democratic rights that workers’ groups in this country have had over long periods under both National and Labour Governments. 
This bill is much fairer. It ensures that parents get adequate notice if there is to be any disruption. That is quite unlike the situation that occurred in the early 1990s when Dr Lockwood Smith was Minister of Education. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This bill is all about the philosophical approach that political parties have to education. That is precisely why the minority view in the commentary on the bill states: “We believe it reinforces the ethos of centralised bargaining of teachers’ employment contracts and reduces the reality that the true employers are the Boards of Trustees. It would be more appropriate to move toward more flexible employment agreements rather than increasing the powers of the State Services Commissioner.” 
We recognise the Government had choices; that there was a particular issue that had to be dealt with. That is an understood point and the Government had a clear choice. It could either centralise or it could devolve. That choice is made on the basis of one’s philosophical attitude towards education. Is it to be State-centred and State-controlled or is it to be parent-centred and child-controlled? That is the fundamental choice that this legislation implies. 
We know what the Government’s choice was and frankly we are not surprised. The Labour Government has always believed in centralisation—bringing power to the centre reducing the power of the communities. That was precisely the debate in the previous bill. It is interesting to have two bills back to back that are actually about a philosophical choice. In both cases the Government has taken the choice of centralisation. What surprises me however is that that choice would be shared by the United Future party and the New Zealand First party. These are parties that would traditionally describe themselves irrespective of their particular positioning as of the centre right—respecting community choice removing power from the State. Yet in both cases they have opted for centralisation. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: No the centre. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mr Donnelly has said that I have got it wrong; that they describe themselves as of the centre; but surely nevertheless New Zealand First is a party that believes in the community rather than the Government. Or have I got it wrong? In fact is the basic underlying philosophy of those two parties actually for centralisation? Because that is what their votes imply. They did have a clear choice in this situation. 
So we are voting against the bill precisely because it reflects the choice the Government made. There was a mischief to be dealt with. We recognise that. It is clearly not desirable for boards of trustees to simply pay teachers who are on strike. But why do they do that? They do it because there are no consequences. Because in fact the power resides with the centre. Surely the proper approach is to sheet responsibility and consequences home to those who are the legal employers—the boards of trustees. So that is the fundamental choice that the public will ultimately be faced with. 
The Government is no doubt going to go out to the New Zealand public in 18 months’ time and say: “Trust us. We know best. We can make the decisions for you. Trust the bureaucrats to make the right choices for your children.” That will not be the choice that National offers to the community. We will be saying: “Devolve power to the community. Give real responsibility to the boards of trustees. Sheet home those responsibilities and the funding to the boards of trustees.” That is the fundamental choice that this bill implies and there could have been another way to deal with this issue. The Government has chosen not to take that way and frankly that is not surprising. It does believe in centralisation. That is why we are debating these two bills today because it is precisely what the Government believes in. We take a different view and we say give the community autonomy. 
I have heard sotto voce interjections by Mr Donnelly about bulk funding. Well we are proud of the results of bulk funding. Certainly within North Shore every school that had the choice made the choice. Why did they make the choice? They did that because it gave them autonomy. It gave them the ability to make choices that were right for their schools and their communities. When people have that opportunity to make those decisions they actually want to be able to make them. That will be the choice that will be being put to the community. It is not often in the House that we get the opportunity to have a worthwhile debate on these deep philosophical interests—how we actually deal with the real choices that face this community. But this is one of those choices and we will be voting against this bill because— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: We will certainly be providing choice in education. We will be opposed to the whole concept and argument of zoning. We will give autonomy to boards of trustees. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Prior to the luncheon break I was saying this bill essentially has within it a philosophical choice between centralisation which was also a feature of the bill debated previously or decentralisation. The Government has chosen centralisation. Somewhat to my surprise both United Future and New Zealand First have unwisely decided to support that educational philosophy. That is an unfortunate choice because there is another way. That way is to trust parents trust teachers and directly fund schools so that they make the choices. That is the essence of the choice and it is why National is opposed to this bill. 
There is also another provision in the bill about redundancies. It is all there because of the Minister’s ill-starred network review which he had great enthusiasm for. Up and down the country he was closing schools left right and centre bravely fronting up—I acknowledge he did go to the various meetings—and going to the communities and saying: “This is good for you.” I saw him on television in Invercargill defending his position. 
Remarkably there was then a complete about face and there are to be no network reviews for 5 long years. It was an extraordinary position to take which could only be assumed to be driven by the polls. The people of Invercargill are still waiting for their answer. Why they not included in that moratorium as well? 
Now there is a somewhat anomalous position. The new sections 77HA and 77HB proposed to be inserted in the State Sector Act by clause 4 of this bill are still in there but in what circumstances would they now be used other than perhaps in Invercargill? In reality the Government has taken a reverse step and done a U-turn. So during the Committee stage we will still ask the Minister why he felt it was necessary to include or retain those provisions given the U-turn. 
I just want to close on this point. This bill involves clear choice between centralisation and State control which is the Government’s way or decentralisation and trusting parents and communities which is National’s way. The public will decide that in 18 months’ time. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and I am glad that that member finished the way that he did because the minority view as expressed in the Education and Science Committee report made it clear the National Party wants to move to individual boards of trustees having to negotiate contracts or agreements with their employees school by school. Those members do want to break down the relationship that has been developed over many many years between those working in our schools and they want to smash the State sector unions the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute. That is the National Party’s position on this. It is not the Government’s position. When the State Services Commissioner has the power to bargain for collective agreements with employees of boards of trustees it makes good sense that the commissioner has all the powers under the legislation. It is sensible legislation from an excellent Minister of Education. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be read a second time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to focus in particular on clause 3 “Purposes” because as referred to in the previous debate this has the philosophy of both the major parties and indeed all of the parties. It is a real choice. For Labour members the choice is this. They want to centralise so therefore the clause has the words: “… to enable the State Services Commissioner in negotiating collective agreements …”. The Government will stand in the stead of the board of trustees. The power goes from schools to the centre. That is the Labour way. We heard the Hon Lianne Dalziel talk about their love of the unions and their cosy relationship with the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) which are well-known funders of the Labour Party. That is the sort of arrangement Labour likes and that is what it favours. 
The Government will give all possible powers to the State Services Commissioner to reinforce that arrangement because the more power one gives to the State Services Commissioner the more power one gives to the unions. That is the corollary which is not stated explicitly in the bill like that but it is the intent. The Government wants to empower unions and this is its mechanism to do so. That is not in the interests of the children and neither is it in the interests of the teachers because it treats all teachers the same. 
I worked in the tertiary sector and one of the most important changes was shifting from a national collective contract to having essentially university or tertiary-specific contracts. When that happened there was a tremendous blossoming of diversity and a real recognition of the abilities and talents of individual people within those institutions. That is how it should be. Teachers are not some form of cloth-capped unionists marching in rank and file although those who would belong to the PPTA and devote all their negotiating power to it would have one believe that that is the case. Teachers are responsible professionals. In the modern era of the 21st century modern professionals negotiate with their employers. Their employer is not the State Services Commissioner; their employers are the boards of trustees. That is the relationship that should occur and schools ought to be funded directly on that basis. 
 That gives real power to the boards of trustees to the community and to the teachers and principals in those workplaces. It strengthens those relationships. It makes ultimately for a more harmonious working relationship because people know where they stand. They have to have that direct relationship between themselves and their employer whereas the Government would have them hiding and buried within this collective of the Post Primary Teachers Association which would undertake all the negotiations. That may advantage the not-so-able teacher but it certainly does not advantage the range diversity and abilities of teachers throughout the school system. If we want a modern 21st century education system we will celebrate the diversity and ability of those teachers. That way we will attract the best people into the teaching profession. 
Dr Lockwood Smith former Minister of Education knows the importance of giving real power to boards of trustees. That is why he was such an advocate as Minister of Tomorrow’s Schools which now unfortunately are “yesterday’s schools” because this Government has crushed initiative. This Government would bring power back to the centre back to the State Services Commissioner so that the Minister could have his cosy little relationship with his mates—I guess they are former mates in the sense of colleagues in the PPTA—and have those kinds of negotiating powers. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I can understand why the Greens are voting against this legislation but I cannot understand why National and ACT are voting to enable teachers to continue the practice of going on strike and withdrawing their labour and still being paid for it. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s a philosophical point. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Dr Mapp said that it is a philosophical point. It is a philosophical point about schools having power devolution of decision-making site bargaining bulk funding and giving real power to boards and teachers. I mention to Dr Mapp that after 9 years of National being in power in the 1990s we ended up having the centralised negotiation of collective employment contracts with the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) and the New Zealand Educational Institute. That is what we ended up with after those 9 years and now National is telling us that it will lead us to a new nirvana. 
Dr Lockwood Smith criticised New Zealand First for not supporting children’s education because of one of the amendments the Education and Science Committee has made to this bill. I ask Dr Lockwood Smith how many days were lost through strikes and how many days and hours of teaching were lost through rostering off in the 1996 negotiations. In the 1998 negotiations that New Zealand First was involved in with the PPTA and the New Zealand Educational Institute not one day was lost. There was not one day of strike action as a result of those negotiations. I ask Dr Lockwood Smith who really does care about the educational well-being of students. 
The point is that in this particular case National is claiming that it wants bulk funding and site bargaining and that that will resolve all the issues yet National had 9 years to put that in practice and it did not advance it. National did not advance that when it had the opportunities to do so. Lockwood Smith’s formula would never have worked because it was based upon the average teacher’s salary—hence there was such resistance by the teachers association and the educationalists who really thought about those issues. It was only when New Zealand First came into the coalition Government and said that if there had to be a formula we should make it a fair one—at the top of the scale—that we had something that might have made the bulk-funding situation work. But the fact is that we went way past that and by the end of the 1990s even National was not prepared to impose the fully funded option of bulk funding. National had the opportunity to do that and failed to do so. 
New Zealand First says that if teachers withdraw their labour—and they should have the right to withdraw their labour—they should lose their pay. That is what this legislation is about. There may also be a reorganisation of schooling in certain areas and people may be offered another job. For example up our way in Northland three schools are being merged on one site and the name of the school will change. Some of the teachers at one school called Punaruku—which will now be called Whangaruru—will have their jobs offered to them. New Zealand First believes that if that offer is made those teachers should be required to take up those jobs and should not be entitled to a full range of redundancy payments. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Stick to the right part. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: This is the right part. I ask Dr Mapp whether he would like me to read out that provision. Obviously he has not read it. New Zealand First says that it is only fair and proper and in line with all other industrial negotiations that if that sort of thing takes place people should not receive redundancy payments. New Zealand First fought in the select committee to make sure that the wording of that provision was tidied up—because there was a need to tidy it up—but it supports the principle at stake. 
The only question New Zealand First really wants to ask the Minister is why he came to the House for the first reading with such a dog of a bill. Why did he not get it right and why did he leave it to the select committee to make all the changes? Other than that I say New Zealand First is flabbergasted at the positions taken by National and ACT. We will support the bill because we believe that given the circumstances left by National in 1999 regarding centralised negotiations these mechanisms are necessary to ensure a level playing field between the taxpayer and teachers. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 In talking in the Committee stage and addressing Part 1 of this bill I say the ACT party will vote against this legislation all the way through. We have heard a lot of argument about why we should not be opposed to this bill removing the right of employers to pay employees who are on strike. If that is the situation Labour and New Zealand First believe in why do they not bring in legislation that would remove that power from private employers too? Private employers can still choose to pay or remunerate their employees in some way if they want to reward them—if they have some sympathy for the reason they are on strike. They can do that. A lot of boards of trustees did not pay striking teachers. The actual figure is not available because as usual this Minister does not bother about detail when he brings in legislation like this. I have tried to get details of the actual number of boards of trustees that continued to pay teachers when they went on strike but we do not know that so we do not even know whether this legislation is necessary. 
Of course that is not the real reason we are bringing in this legislation. The real reason is that this Minister wants to overturn Tomorrow’s Schools. He has commissioned research that shows the ideal situation is to have one board of trustees for every 200 schools. That is a de facto education board situation. Even now parents who are on boards of trustees tell us that they are having less and less say in the actual running of their school. They are required more and more to deal with form filling and they have to make sure that their school complies with over a dozen pieces of legislation. When Brian Picot came up with the idea of Tomorrow’s Schools based on very sound research from a Labour Government—which is now being overturned by another Labour Government—we had the situation whereby more power and control was to be devolved to communities and parents to run their schools. This legislation will rip more of that decision making away from parents and boards of trustees. 
In trying to overcome the issue of teachers double-dipping when a school is closed or merged the Minister has got himself into a pickle. In trying to get himself out of that pickle he is further reducing choice. To try to get away from the situation in which a teacher is made redundant because a school closes and then gets a job at another school down the road or at the newly merged school but still receives a redundancy payment as well as being paid for the new job he is reducing the right of schools within that locality—that is the exact wording in the bill—to be able to choose the best teacher for the job. They will be caught between a rock and a hard place. They may not take the teacher that the State Services Commissioner directs should go there who will otherwise not be compensated for losing his or her job because there may be a better applicant. If it is a small rural locality or provincial area the schools will probably know the people concerned personally. They will know their families. They will have to decide whether to put that person out on the street or to take the best teacher for the job. 
That is exactly why there should not be central control. People in Wellington do not know what is best for people at Blackball on the West Coast or at Russell in Northland. They do not know what is best for those people I say to the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard. The Minister does not know that and nor do the bureaucrats. The only people who know what is best for those communities are the people who live there—the parents the principals the boards of trustees and the teachers. If we could just go back to bulk funding we would not need this bill. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is concerned about some of the comments with regard to Part 1 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) which is before us today. We are concerned because of the misunderstanding that exists in some of the statements that National and ACT members have been trying to argue in the Committee. I note that both parties oppose the bill because it reinforces the ethos of “centralised bargaining” in their words. However that can never be the reality unless the boards also have the power to negotiate employee agreements and that is not the case. If it were the case then taking the position that National and ACT have taken may apply but it is not the case so we are looking at the reality here. Otherwise we would do as National proposes which is that teachers should be paid while they are on strike. I am sure that is not the case. Clause 3 “Purposes” states very firmly that teachers cannot be paid while they are on strike and provides for a mechanism to be set in place to ensure that that does not happen. Otherwise it will happen and there will be confusion between the employer—the State Services Commission—the boards of trustees the teachers and worse still the children who are being taught at school. 
United Future is concerned that there has been quite a misunderstanding of the purpose of the bill. To emphasise that a recent case came to my attention that highlights the confusion surrounding exactly whom the employer is when it comes to schools. One could be forgiven for thinking that the board is responsible for employment decisions made by a school but that is not so according to a recent decision by the Employment Relations Authority. This is what happened. A teacher complained that his salary was reduced after his qualifications were found to be incomplete and blamed the board for not following up on the issue of having the salary restored. But it was the ministry and its payment agent that made the decision to cut the salary so they were obviously held to be responsible for it. The judgment was consistent with the intent of this bill but I wonder whether it resolves some of the questions that will continue to exist surrounding the status of boards as employers. 
I pointed out earlier that due to the submissions made on the bill as introduced major corrections have been made to the bill in order to conform to the purposes of the Act so that it can work properly. We now have before the Committee something that is workable something that I would like to commend and something that United Future supports. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The once-proud Labour Party headed by the Rt Hon David Lange gave New Zealand Tomorrow’s Schools. Today very appropriately a few MPs mentioned that the current Labour Government is fast returning them to yesteryears. I am surprised that Bernie Ogilvy is concerned that National and ACT are voting against this legislation and is confused as to why that is the case. We were hoping to see a movement towards teachers and boards of trustees being able to bargain a fair outcome for both parties on their own terms. All that the Minister has done with the endorsement of New Zealand First United Future and the Greens is to transfer the power to conduct wage bargaining from the boards of trustees to the State Services Commissioner in Wellington. 
Clause 3(c) of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) actually provides that boards of trustees have to report to the State Services Commissioner on the conduct of strikes that affect their schools. Let us think of the unnecessary bureaucracy that is being introduced by this legislation. A board of trustees that is on site at a school will now have to monitor a strike situation and report to the State Services Commissioner in Wellington. That is the person who is supposed to be able to carry out good-faith bargaining with teachers. Why introduce another layer of complication into the situation? I was quite interested to find that members of the Labour Government—which is supposed to trust teachers—today during the debate seemed to be suggesting there has been all sorts of undesirable behaviour by teachers. According to those members teachers are not to be trusted so that is why the Government has to empower the State Services Commissioner to bargain with them. 
National and ACT have taken a very consistent and logical stand in saying that Tomorrow’s Schools was about self-governance by schools together with parents principals and teachers and with input from students in order for schools to conduct their business in an inclusive manner. Today this bill once again introduces a bureaucracy—a centrally controlled structure—into the bargaining process of schools. Does the Labour Government not trust boards of trustees? Does it not believe that if empowered they can carry out those functions? Why introduce a bureaucracy and then have the boards of trustees continue to monitor the situation and report to the commissioner who is based in Wellington? That simply does not make sense to the National Party. 
We will certainly oppose this bill. Tomorrow’s Schools when it was introduced was well intentioned and taking away self-governance from schools is a retrograde step. I hope United Future will take another look at the legislation and study it carefully because after all it claims to be a party of common sense that trusts teachers and principals and believes that people left to their own devices are able to come up with decisions that are acceptable to all parties. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 When Caldwell and Spinks went around the country in 1988-89 talking about self-managing schools we in the education sector knew that that was always going to be limited and limited for one reason—the allocation of funds. Contrary to what I have heard in this debate so far that was always the intention and in 1989 in 1990 throughout the total years of the National Party’s administration till 1996 and during the period of coalition from 1996 to 1999 that was so. So looking at clause 3 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) I am finding some difficulty in understanding the arguments being pursued in the Chamber—ones of a supposed deep philosophical mind. What are they? My experience in the secondary school system and my knowledge of the primary school system do not tell me there were any changes with regard to salaries maintenance and the bulk of school funding throughout the whole of that time by any of the administrations nor are there so at the present time. 
But the reality was that in 2002 there was a problem. The problem which is reflected in this bill was that some boards—or principals in the secondary school sector—in trying to show particularity towards their staff did wrongfully I am suggesting not acknowledge that staff were not at school during some planned strike actions while some principals took extreme care with regard to docking teachers’ pay for every absent hour of every day. That must be the rationale behind the segments of clause 3 that bring to hand the actions of the State Services Commissioner. Who else would have the ability to say to boards that deductions in respect of strike days lost should have been made which in some cases because of the particular atmosphere of that strike action in 2002 was not done? So my experience conveys to me that this measure is reasonable. I certainly do not concur with the suggestion made by Deborah Coddington that somehow taxpayers’ funding is equated with private funding and that therefore there should be some gratis payments of taxpayers’ funds. It is an appalling idea and if she really thinks about what she said she would be sorry that she said so in the Chamber because it is taxpayers’ money. 
To come back to 1989 and the issue of the so-called reforms accountability was always going to be an issue with regard to the spending of the dollar. It still is. That is not easy in the school system when there is never enough money to go around as the Minister said yesterday; there is not enough money today and there will not be enough tomorrow and every dollar counts. Not least is the issue of salaries. Salaries were not under National Party administrations or under any other administrations paid—[ 
Interruption 
] If we go to a voucher system that may be an answer but it will never be the total answer to week-by-week fortnight-by-fortnight payments to teachers. It was an answer for those who are part of the support staff; it has never been so for those who are part of the teaching staff—and it was not entirely satisfactory when it was. 
The second issue I want to raise as the reason for this measure is that the schools did not in the main have salary service agents within their own school administrations. They were centralised from the very start. In 1989 they were centralised. In 1991 under a National Party administration they were centralised. So again where is the deep-seated philosophical change of heart? [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Power that what we have here is a cheap argument without real substance being advanced on what is a simple straightforward administrative bill which clarifies what was not known and should have been clarified in 2002. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have sat in the Chamber and listened to the contributions that have been made from various parties. I think it is worth making a couple of points of clarification. I must say that like my colleague Pansy Wong I am extremely surprised by the United Future party’s decision to support this legislation through these stages. It seems to me that this bill is a sort of apology from the Minister of Education to the Post Primary Teachers Association and an attempt—[ 
Interruption 
] I have always noticed that about Mr Donnelly: sometimes he was part of the Government in the 1990s and sometimes he was not. It just depends on which piece of legislation we are debating. [ 
Interruption 
] Was that from Rick Barker—“That member will never be in Government.”? Well if the choice is doing that or signing off JP nominations it is a pretty tight call! 
Clause 3 begins: “The purposes of this Act are—(a) to enable the State Services Commissioner in negotiating collective agreements applicable to employees of Boards of Trustees to exercise … the powers available to an employer …”. Lianne Dalziel has contributed to the debate by saying that wages are centrally funded so the commissioner should be able to exercise the rights of an employer during that negotiation. In a strange way Lianne Dalziel has gone right to the heart of the matter because that is the problem. The whole problem is that we are saying to boards of trustees that they are the employers and will take responsibility for the running of schools and the employment of teaching staff but at the same time we are removing the very thing that binds the employer–employee relationship and that is the payment of remuneration. Various members have stated that the opportunity arose from time to time to remove that particular provision and the point has been well made and acknowledged. Let me assure those members who have an interest in this matter that when the Government changes so will some issues around this particular matter. 
What is really going on here is we are removing further individual rights of boards of trustees members and recentralising them 
around the funding arm the State Services Commissioner—effectively a de facto employer standing outside the contractual relationship that should exist directly between the employing board of trustees and the employee teacher. That fact is the difficulty we find ourselves in in every school around the country—that there is a third party butting its nose into the relationship between schools and boards of trustees and the teachers. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: It always has been. 
SIMON POWER 
: That does not make it right. The simple fact of the matter is that in order to give a bit of exercise to local parents and local schools these matters should be the subject of negotiation directly between the boards of trustees and the employee teachers themselves. There is no good reason why the Post Primary Teachers Association should be negotiating directly with the State Services Commissioner over issues that are particular to each individual school and the learning requirements of individual children in that school. My colleague Dr Wayne Mapp has made the point very clearly that all that this bill is designed to do is to firm up and protect the collective bargaining arrangement that has existed for far too long between the Post Primary Teachers Association and in this case the State Services Commissioner on behalf of the Government when or if this legislation is introduced. It is high time that schools were left to get on with this business on their own merits. 
This is very confused legislation. On the one hand the Minister is protecting the collective bargaining arrangement of the Post Primary Teachers Association but he is also quietly putting the slipper in in clause 3(d)— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Quietly? 
SIMON POWER 
: That is a fair point. The Minister does not usually do things quietly but in clause 3(d) he is quietly putting the slipper in. To sort of make up for the G3 stuff-up he has slipped into clause 3(d) the purpose “to preclude compensation for technical redundancies”. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 We are debating Part 1 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and from my left there has been a shrill cry of “School by school!” in astonished tones as the honourable Lianne Dalziel tries to interrupt Mr Simon Power with what she thinks is the killer punch—school by school negotiation. What a shocking idea that boards of trustees—all 2000 of them or however many primary schools there are and another 500 or so secondary schools; I cannot remember the figures—might be entrusted to sort out the terms of employment of their own teachers. That is horror for the left. That horror is what this bill is about and that is why the purpose provisions in clause 3 with their very anodyne words do not really say it as simply as they might. This is the coffee the Minister of Education has when he is drunk. It is a dreadful policy and a foolish reversal of the Picot reforms. To take away bulk funding— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member should not say that. He will withdraw that remark. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I withdraw. If I may I will explain to the Minister in case he felt grave offence. Sometimes when one makes a mistake and is drunk—and I think this is typical of teenagers—the way one that tries to cover it up is to drink coffee. One makes desperate efforts to look sober. What we have in this legislation is the inevitable consequence of the State Services Commissioner having to negotiate terms and conditions of employment because the commissioner is responsible when boards will not be responsible. If they are not able to deal with their funds and set their priorities themselves of course they are irresponsible. As a former trustee myself I know that I would do exactly what boards of trustees do in circumstances where they do not have the power to determine the terms and conditions of employment they do not have the power to determine wages and they do not have the power to pay their best teachers what they are worth and to get rid of their worst teachers in the way that an ordinary private sector employer can; of course they conspire with the teachers against the person who has to sign the cheques. 
So we get a bill that still leaves the appearance of an employment relationship between the board and the staff still leaves some selection power but recentralises negotiations and therefore plays directly into the hands of incompetent teachers and the State sector unions—the ones that contribute so much to Labour’s election prospects. The teaching unions are getting a reward. That reminds me of the reward being offered to the prison officers’ union. The only competition that really shows up the poor performance of the State prison sector is being killed off by the Government ending the private prison contract. This bill—and its purpose provisions make it reasonably plain—will make more concrete that the employment relationship between the board and the teacher is a farce. It contains the powers that the Minister needed when he ended genuine employment by school boards of teachers. 
I do not think the Minister has taken a call in this debate but I would be very interested to know just what input the State Services Commissioner intends giving to boards now. I know I cannot debate the next part of the bill but it is very interesting that the powers that the State Services Commissioner will now have include powers to require trustees in effect to jump to the State Services Commissioner’s order. That is disguised in the purpose clause. Paragraph (c) is the only purpose that covers it and it states: “to require Boards of Trustees to report to the State Services Commissioner on the conduct of strikes that affect the schools of those Boards;”. What that little purpose provision does not say is that it can also allow the State Services Commissioner to threaten boards if they do not do exactly as he says. The commissioner now has the power to decide whether they were negligent or not in their dealings. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The part we are discussing in this bill essentially talks about the purpose of the bill which is to give validity to an appalling industrial relations situation that exists between the teaching fraternity in this country and the payers of the salaries of those teachers. It ignores the relationship between teachers and boards of trustees that for all other purposes are considered to be the employers of teachers. It is the sort of legislation that occurs when a Government decides that it will regulate everything in any area it chooses. I want to know from the Minister: if the Employment Relations Act is so good—the Act that was touted by Margaret Wilson as landmark legislation for industrial relations—why do we now have a bill that gives the State Services Commissioner certain exemptions from the provisions of that Act? What is the need for this bill? Why are teachers being treated differently from other employees? 
Further why are teachers not able to negotiate directly with their own boards? Why cannot they say to their boards: “Not only do I do my time in the classroom but I also do a bit of drama I also take sport twice a week and then on a Saturday and I think I should be paid more than someone who just does their classroom teaching.”? But they cannot do that because the Government has said: “No. Every teacher is the same and they must be paid on a scale.” I know that the Minister will stand up and say: “Oh but we have put in place management units.” Right? 
I ask the Minister if he is going to stand up and give us a lecture on those management units whether he can tell us how many teachers in this country receive their management units exclusively for sport or exclusively for cultural activity outside the classroom. There will not be many. There will be very very few because the Minister knows that those management units are overwhelmingly tagged for curriculum matters as they pertain to the classroom. I want to know from the Minister whether it is necessary— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: As it should be. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister actually chipped in then and I do not want to give his interjection credibility except to say that he said that that was as it should be. That is an admission from the Labour Government that sport in schools does not matter cultural activities in schools do not matter and that all children in schools should simply be confined to the classroom and their education delivered along the narrow lines of chalk and talk. That is what the Labour Government’s vision of education is for this country and it reinforces that with a bill like this that ties the hands of both boards of trustees and for that matter the many teachers in this country who might want to be better off by being able to negotiate their own circumstances. 
I can look at the faces of those people sitting across the other side of the Chamber and see how worried they are. They know that as they go into their dying days as a Government some of their key legislation is likely to be undone by the very people it is supposed to affect—in other words the many thousands of teachers in this country who will not vote for that Government because their professional integrity is just being kicked in a heap. They are being told they are a single mass who will simply take a salary for doing a job regardless of how well they do that job. 
 The other fascinating point in this part is the requirement for boards of trustees to report to the State Services Commissioner on the conduct of strikes that affect the schools of those boards. What does that say? Is it saying that there are some strikes they do not have to report? Is it saying that they have to make some assessment of how well the strike went? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to bring in a new point that has not been raised yet. However I will start by responding to a question put by Gerry Brownlee who asked why teachers could not negotiate directly with their employers. The answer is quite simple: for the 9 years National was in Government it never gave teachers the opportunity to do so. The system was not in place for the Labour Government to take away because it was not there in the first place. 
Stephen Franks says that teachers are getting a reward. Some reward I have to say! This legislation actually reduces the powers through collective negotiations of the teachers associations or unions. Some reward! It is National and ACT that want to retain the powers that the unions now have. The point is this: why do we have to put this through under urgency? Why are we putting this through in this timely fashion? The public needs to know the Parliament should know and Annette King and Gerry Brownlee might like to know too that we have collective negotiations coming up very very soon. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What for? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: For secondary primary and area school contracts. I ask members to remember that we have a situation that is chaotic as a leftover from the last set of negotiations with the secondary school teachers. The Government has a mess of the Minister’s own making. This bill tries to make sure that the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute do not have those extraordinary powers to utilise when those negotiations come about. 
Do people want to see another round such as we saw prior to the last election? Do we want the sorts of decision-making processes where they had to go to an arbitration panel and the Minister gave them an open cheque? It created more problems for the future as well as costing the taxpayer a lot more money than the Post Primary Teachers Association would have settled for. If that is what we want members should vote against this legislation. This is what I am asking ACT and National to consider because what they are doing is saying that they would continue to allow the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute to have extraordinary powers to withdraw their labour and still get paid for it. 
In this respect New Zealand First is saying that those collective negotiations have to be done between now and the next election so why should the taxpayers’ representatives go in with their hands tied behind their backs? That is an issue that does not seem to strike home to the ideologues from National and ACT who in their 9 years did not do anything about this issue anyhow. 
The point is that we need to be worried that we have some untidy negotiations coming up. For the good of our children and education I hope that is not the case. I hope the Minister has learnt a whole lot of lessons from last time around but I do not think that is the case because he is starting off behind the eightball with a very untidy situation around the G3s. Unless that can be resolved it will not be only the Post Primary Teachers Association that is going on strike it will be the New Zealand Educational Institute as well. Therefore it seems to me that it is responsible to ensure that the negotiating teams—the State Services Commission or by delegation the Ministry of Education—have this legislation passed so that they can negotiate on behalf of taxpayers on a level playing field. I put that to both the ACT and the National parties to consider very seriously. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments concerning employees of Boards of Trustees. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The core of this part is section 74AA in clause 4 headed: “Commissioner’s powers when collective agreements are negotiated”. Subsection (1) states: “the commissioner has for the purpose of those negotiations all the rights duties and powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act 2000 in respect of those employees.” In simple words that means that all negotiations are done at the behest of the Minister by the State Services Commission with the monopolistic unions the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute—the Labour Party’s very good friends and no doubt funders thereof as well. 
It is all very well for the member from New Zealand First to talk about the past. We ask that member to look forward because that is what this Parliament is here for—to look at the way things will be done in the future. One of the things I have always said to New Zealand First members is that they have a fond memory of New Zealand prior to 1984. It is as if the last 20-odd years had never happened. They may have a certain appeal to a group of New Zealanders who would live in the past. That is the basic appeal of New Zealand First. That is why its members are so opposed to international trade the ending of tariffs and the modernisation of New Zealand’s manufacturing and service industries. They are also opposed to looking forward in the area of education. So all they can do is talk about the period of the 9 long years. 
Actually it is worth recording that the Hon Brian Donnelly was an Associate Minister of Education for two of those years. It is all very well for him to talk about 9 years while he had responsibility for one-quarter of that period. [ 
Interruption 
] That is exactly the problem with New Zealand First. Two out of nine equals one-eighth in the eyes of Mr Mark. Does that not say so much about them? 
I want to return to the core point. How do we go forward? We go forward by empowering people. That means boards of trustees. That means teachers. It means basically negotiating at that particular level. That is how we empower people. That is how we deal with modern professional relationships. Why is it so difficult for the Government to get that fundamental point? Can it not see that every private sector employer is able to negotiate with employees? It does not cause trauma. It does not cause drama. People simply get on with the job and do it. 
I can tell the Minister that when that change was made in the 1990s—and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith would have been Minister of Education at that time and promoted that change: the shift from centralised bargaining towards site bargaining at tertiary level; he saw an enormous flowering of diversity and opportunity at the tertiary level. Would it not be wonderful if that could also be achieved at the compulsory education level. We on this side of the Chamber are saying to the Government that a clear choice will be put to New Zealanders. That choice will be: “Do you believe in centralised old-fashioned State-controlled answers of the left or do you believe in empowering people giving people autonomy freedom and the ability to develop real relationships where people work between their real employers the board of trustees and the community and the teachers themselves breaking the cycle of restrictive unionism that virtually compels people into a union?”. That is the Labour way but our way is superior. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have proposed an amendment to the bill to delete clause 5. This clause sets out the redundancy changes. In our view this clause undermines the collective agreements and is an attempt to alter by legislation collective agreements with the teachers. Currently when a school closes a teacher is entitled to take redundancy. If the teacher subsequently gets a job in another school after he or she has accepted redundancy the teacher is required to refund an appropriate amount of his or her redundancy. That is perfectly reasonable and is a process that already exists. But clause 5 takes that option away from teachers. If their school closes and they are offered an equivalent position—a decision about equivalency made by the Minister—they are required to take it even if their original school has closed. 
This is not even an equivalent process to the one for mergers where there is at least a guarantee of employment for teachers. In the Greens’ view this is an attempt by the Minister to remedy the problems that he will face when he closes schools and builds new flash expensive ones but finds that teachers in those areas are so unhappy with the process around their employment so unhappy with the school closures that they choose not to teach at that new school or in some cases not to teach at all. 
How will the Minister staff these new schools? Will he listen to their calls not to close schools arbitrarily that are vital to the community and thereby repair the relationships he has damaged? Will he offer better conditions and pay for teachers as a whole to ensure that they are properly paid for the crucial job they do? No he will not. What he will do instead is change the conditions of their employment without their agreement using legislation not bargaining and strip away their choice of redundancy. The Greens’ amendment will eliminate this inequity in the bill and we urge all members to support it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I want to speak relatively briefly to draw the attention of members to the amendments. I have not yet heard anyone refer to the amendments that have been sitting on the Table for some time. There are now three amendments. There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name. There is a minor amendment to that and there is also the Greens’ amendment. The only reason for speaking is to draw members’ attention to them so that they do not get a fright later on. I notice that National Party members especially had not quite picked up the fact that the amendments were there. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make just a few comments on this part of the bill. The first is to Dr Wayne Mapp who has been fairly critical of New Zealand First’s position. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Philosophically. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Philosophically. I say to Dr Wayne Mapp that during the 20 months that New Zealand First was part of the Government the one thing we did do at least was to get the bulk funding formula right. That was something the National Party could not get right in all those periods of time before that. 
There are a few other issues that need commenting upon. The first one is to make note of the— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did you give up? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: We gave National the opportunity to be able to— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did you give up? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Because New Zealand First had a coalition agreement with National and we withdrew from it. We gave National the opportunity to impose bulk funding with a good formula. National had the opportunity to make it compulsory for all schools and it did not do it during that time. That suggests that National was not committed to it in the first place. 
I want to comment on the penalties for not complying which was the Minister’s original intention. I am glad that provision has been taken out of the bill because it was draconian. It would have led to boards of trustees being penalised over and above any other non-compliance issues. In the long run it would have impacted upon the quality of education. New Zealand First is very pleased with the part it played in having that provision removed. 
I turn to the issue of technical redundancies. The bill as it came into the House was untidy and it was not really clear which schools it applied to. I will give an example. A number of schools in the Moerewa area are under the network review but just over the hill is Pakaraka School which is not within the review. However it is very possible that the decisions the Minister makes concerning the Moerewa schools could impact upon Pakaraka School. The question is whether that school falls within the compass of this particular legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not this time but maybe next time. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: OK but that was one of the issues that had to be tidied up. I think the wording has now been tidied up but the problem is that when the bill first came in it was not very clear whether those schools would have been captured or not captured so we did our job on behalf of the House of Representatives. 
But I also say to the Greens that teachers cannot have it both ways. One of the things teacher associations really push for is job protection and it has always been the case that they would prefer job protection over redundancy packages. There were priority rights schemes in the past where teachers had access to other jobs in other places and had first priority with regard to those jobs. It has always been the position of the teacher associations to protect jobs first. Whilst redundancy packages have been negotiated the preference is still to ensure that jobs are offered to teachers as a first priority when it comes to downsizing merging closures or anything else. 
So teachers cannot have it both ways where first of all there is job protection. In other words this bill says first and foremost that those jobs have to be offered to the teachers who are coming out of the schools then at the same time the Greens say that if teachers choose not to take the jobs they should have full access to redundancy packages. I think that is asking too much. It is wanting additions to both sides of the equation. 
I think that what we have here is fair. If teachers are offered jobs they should be required to take them. They should not be able for example to collect a redundancy and then pick up a job at Pakaraka just over the hill even when they have already been offered a job. It seems in this particular case that the Greens really want the teachers to have it both ways. 
However I want to make another point that no one has raised with regard to this particular matter and that is the issue of principals. The bill states that when schools are closed the principal’s job has to be advertised which is the reverse of what is offered the teachers. There are some very sound reasons for that. In the past for example if several small schools were merged the job had to go to one of the principals. But with the way the Minister was running his network reviews if several small schools merged with a larger school and the principal of the larger school did not want the job then one of the smaller ones had to get it and he or she might not have been experienced enough. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to turn to section 74AB (1) inserted by clause 4concerning boards of trustees. It has been changed slightly from what originally came to the select committee. When we first got this bill boards of trustees were totally liable for any financial claims for costs or damages that might arise from the exercise of powers conferred on the commissioner. That has been changed to state that in any claims or proceedings the board of trustees becomes liable for anything the commissioner does—so if the commissioner makes a decision and does something the board of trustees is liable for any claims. But the commissioner now must out of money appropriated for the purpose by Parliament indemnify the board for those costs or damages. 
So far so good but we then go on to section 74AB(2) which states the board of trustees may not be indemnified for any costs or damages if the costs or damages have arisen out of conduct that in the reasonable opinion of the commissioner is not in good faith or is engaged in without reasonable care. Here we have a commissioner doing something that places the boards of trustees in a vulnerable situation where they can be liable for costs or damages but the commissioner then decides whether what has happened has not been done in good faith or without reasonable care before taking responsibility for indemnifying them for those costs and damages. That is a totally worthless and meaningless indemnity clause. We might just as well have been honest and stuck to the draconian clause that was there in the first place. At least boards of trustees would have known how vulnerable they are and how vulnerable they will be when this legislation is passed. 
Why does the Minister not take a call to tell us what his definition of good faith is or engaging in something without reasonable care? But of course it will not be the Minister who decides under this legislation; it will be the State Services Commissioner. Here we have a Minister who is both Minister of Education and Minister of State Services; therefore he is in a perfect situation totell the Committee what is meant by this provision because most sensible people will read it as being totally meaningless. When this legislation is passed boards of trustees will be extremely vulnerable in terms of costs and damages. 
Who will suffer? Where will that budget come from? It will come from the school budget. It will not come from Parliament because the State Services Commissioner will do everything he or she can to make sure that it does not come from Parliament and that it comes back to the schools and out of the school budget. Again learning will be the loser. 
We have heard a lot of rhetoric today about the ACT party purportedly supporting the principle that if people go on strike they should also get paid. If members were listening they would know that that is not what we have been saying at all. I have consistently said that during strikes many boards of trustees decided not to pay their teachers at all. That is the right we are arguing for. We are arguing for those boards of trustees to retain the right not to pay their teachers or if they wish to pay them in order to keep good relationships going. 
This legislation will further damage the relationship between boards of trustees and their employees—the teachers. To all intents and purposes they are the employees; in reality it is the Minister who employs them because through the State Services Commissioner they will be told where to go and whether they should be paid. Under this legislation the decisions that allow those boards of trustees to keep good relationships with their teachers will be taken away from them. They will be put further into a bad situation and there is no guarantee that strikes will not happen. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 2 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) is really the heart of this legislation. In this part clause 4 gives the State Services Commissioner all the rights duties and powers under the Employment Relations Act during the period of collective agreement negotiations. This is all about big Government big unions and forget the children. 
If I am wrong in that assertion why does the Government not provide the opportunity for it to be tested? For schools it owns for State schools in the State monopoly the Government will require that the boards of trustees totally abrogate their responsibilities during negotiation of teachers’ pay and conditions—teachers are meant to be the employees of the boards but we will forget that for the moment. Let us allow that the Government wants to do that. But if that is so right and if that will produce such good outcomes in terms of rewarding our best teachers as they should be rewarded and providing the opportunity for poor teachers—and there are plenty of them—to be dismissed under appropriate arrangements why not give the choice to schools? If the Government is right why not allow some schools to say that no they actually want to negotiate with their own teachers? Why not open things up to absolutely fair competition for ideas? If centralised control where one size fits all and Big Brother Government controls the lot and the big teacher union on the other side controls all the teachers is so good let it be tested. Let the Government provide real choice for parents by funding children who go to schools the Government does not own in the same manner as it funds children going to schools it does own. 
Let us see which way parents choose to go. I would bet with every last dollar I had that we would see parents rushing out the doors of the great State monopoly into schools where skilled teachers were rewarded into schools that could employ the best and into schools that could get rid of teachers who were not performing. That is my challenge to Minister Wilson who has taken over from the Minister of Education in the chair: if this idea of total centralised control is so good then the Government should allow choice. If the Government believes that it is such a good model it should allow real choice. It should fund all children the same. When I say the same if they are from poor backgrounds then OK fund them more; if their need is greater fund them more but let their parents choose which school they go to. That ought to be the test of what is right. If what the Government is doing here is so right let parents choose. We know of course that parents would leave the great State monopoly in their droves under this legislation if they had real choice. 
That is at the heart of this; this big nanny Labour Government thinks it knows best and treats the public with contempt. We saw it with the foreshore and seabed issue. There was no consultation with the wider public; the only consultation was with iwi. It is such arrogance! The public is saying that it has had a gutsful of it. I say to the Minister in the chair Margaret Wilson that if she believes she is so right—she was Minister of Labour—if she believes that this kind of employment arrangement is so right I accept that she may be right but she should give parents the chance to decide whether they want this big State control and big union control. If she really believes in education for children she should give parents the choice. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I had not intended to stand but I heard a most remarkable speech made by a former Minister of Education who was in that role for 6 years until 1996. We in education understand the time lag. I heard the worst apology I have heard so far in my short time in this House for a former Minister’s inaction and inability to galvanise the education industry into being what it should be. He is concerned about poor teachers—and he made a comment as to how many there were—but he is one of those in this House who is responsible for that very state in the schools. 
I recall and I say from experience that the actual issue throughout the 1990s with regard to the issue of the State Services Commissioner today was no different from the Secretary for Education role. At times the powers have been reversed but the education of children has always depended upon good teaching which that former Minister did not provide for adequately in his day. I have a word for the present Minister: it is not being provided for adequately at the present time either. If we had not had the benefit over the last decade of overseas teachers the secondary school system in this country would be in a very parlous state. 
So it ill behoves that former Minister of Education who had the direction and the planning of the whole of the education system in his hands to come here in 2004 and say: “Forget my mistakes forget the way in which I ran the education system down and instead give free choice’’—supposed free choice—“to those who can afford it.” That is what it is about. I find it appalling and I find it a shocking indictment on the former Minister that he should so soon after his administration be so quick to denigrate the efforts of his department his officers and most of all the teachers who for a while had faith in him. I do not want to say anything more. That member was the Minister until 1996 and was superseded by Wyatt Creech. 
I want now to turn to Part 2 because that part talks about the powers of the commissioner—the so-called draconian powers that the member talked about—which are no more as I said a moment ago than those at times exercised by the Secretary for Education. In the practical realm of paying teachers that role has sometimes been that of the State Services Commissioner and at other times it has been that of the Minister of Education who has delegated his powers to the secretary. So there should not be any great issue made here. 
The real issue is that as a past member of the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)—until the end of 2002—I am quite confident that any member of the PPTA would feel that any teacher who was not on the job did not deserve to be paid. That is all that is envisaged in clause 4. Where a teacher is not on the job then that teacher has no right to be remunerated at all if he or she has been suspended appropriately or has been locked out. That is all that the clause says. As a principal and on behalf of the boards that I worked with I say that is fair and reasonable. I say again that in 2002 some schools felt they could not do that. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How did you do the job? 
JIM PETERS 
: I was one of the founding principals of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand and an intense believer in the association’s philosophies. But I come back to the point that the actual practical situation does not much change from what it was yesterday. The bill merely makes certain that those schools that did not take appropriate action in 2002—and I say again that unfortunately some boards and some principals did not—would under the directive envisaged in this clause have to have regard to the instructions given by the commissioner. In another day it could have been those of the Secretary for Education. The title does not matter but the principle is that there is no ability for a member of the PPTA or the New Zealand Educational Institute to be paid for a work day if he or she was absent. 
Again I just wanted to add that little bit of further practical experience to the debate on the bill before the Committee. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am driven to my feet on behalf of the ACT party to speak on this bill that gives the State Services Commission the power essentially to complete its control of negotiations with teachers and take boards of trustees out of the loop. Mr Jim Peters who has just finished speaking referred to the prospect that allowing funding to follow the child would end up benefiting only wealthy people. It is a shame that Mr Peters has not looked at the research. That same kind of reasoning would say that if people were allowed to pay for their bread only rich people would get bread. What we have in fact is evidence from wherever it has been tried that it benefits the poor the best. But my colleague Deborah Coddington will say more on that because it relates very closely to the alternative that should have been in this bill and is not. We were delighted to hear the Hon Lockwood Smith so vigorously championing the real solution to the problem that Part 2 is trying to address. 
I am sorry that the Minister in the chair now is the Hon Margaret Wilson because I really wanted to question the Hon Trevor Mallard who is in charge of this bill about clause 4 and the powers given to the commission in that clause. That is because the Minister I believe in his own patch of education is making very very sure that he is not afflicted with the kind of employment law that Minister Margaret Wilson has tried to push on to the rest of the employers of this country. 
The rest of the employers in this country have very serious problems with the so-called good-faith obligation. The employer must foster good faith directly with the employee or with the employee’s agents. Here of course the employer is taken right out of the loop. In new section 74AA inserted by clause 4 the commissioner has all the rights duties and powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act. What possible basis for good faith can that give to boards? I would like to hear the Minister in the chair explain whether the Minister of Education had any consultation with her on this. There could not be a provision that is more directly antagonistic to the theories that the Minister in the chair has been putting into employment law for this country. Here we have a third party—someone who does not have to look the teachers in the eye someone who does not have the concerns of the classroom someone who does not have to worry about recruitment someone who does not have to deal with the problems as an employer—being put in to completely usurp “all the rights duties and powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act 2000 in respect of those employees.” 
It may be that coming to this Chamber for the Committee stage of a bill is just a chore for the Minister and it is possible to sit there and pretend that it does not have anything to do with the Minister. But in fact the Committee stage is Parliament’s opportunity to have an explanation. How does this bill fit with the Employment Relations Act? What possible basis of good faith is this bringing to the schools of this country? What possible foundation for good faith can this Government claim in relation to education when the nominal employer is pushed out of the way when the State Services Commission has all the rights duties and powers of an employer in the most important negotiation for many teachers—negotiation on their wages and conditions in the collective employment agreement? Does this bill mean for example that the board can still communicate directly with its employees without the Minister’s thought police intervening? It does not say. All this bill states is that the board has to communicate with the commissioner. It does not state whether the board can go to teachers to explain the truth which is: “Don’t blame us. Please don’t hold this against us or our children. In the negotiation don’t hold the children to ransom. They have nothing to do with this. It’s all to do with the State Services Commission.” What sort of good faith does it show when the State Services Commission is given the power. This must have been a New Zealand First intervention— 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I want to carry on from Stephen Franks’ speech because he hit on a very important aspect of this bill. This bill will not correct what it is trying to correct. There is only one way to get this country’s education system out of the hole it has got into with centralised control. As the Hon Lockwood Smith said it is to let parents choose. It is so interesting that every time this debate is brought up there are people who think that ordinary people cannot choose. It is as if they are reading directly from the script of  
Yes Minister 
 where that very situation was demonstrated in such a comical way. 
But let me draw members’ attention to what is happening in America and this will happen soon in Britain with the Blair Government. The Prime Minister said of Tony Blair the Prime Minister of Britain: “We are so close you couldn’t even slip a piece of paper between us.” That is not the case because the Blair Government has decided to introduce a voucher system to inner city schools for children of poor families where the schools are failing them. An article in Florida in the United States stated that there is no doubt why Jesse Jackson was in Tallahassee this month calling Governor Jeb Bush’s policies racist. He and his allies understand all too well that when poor African-American and Latino children start getting the same shot at a decent education as the children of our politicians do the bankrupt public education empire starts looking like the Berlin Wall. 
When the ACT party started talking about parental choice in 1996 it was considered mad. It is so gratifying now to hear the National Party vigorously championing the case for parents being able to choose. If we devolved the funding out to families and they took it to the school of their choice then we would not have to have legislation like this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) that takes what even little power parents have in the form of boards of trustees over teachers who are employed and how they are paid and removes it entirely back to the State Services Commissioner. 
This is draconian legislation. It should not be progressing through the House especially under urgency. It will make life a lot worse for those families whose children are struggling at school. I challenge the New Zealand First member who said that this legislation gives choice only to those who can afford it. Only those who can afford it right now have choice. They can either choose to send their children to a private school if they can afford it or they can choose to move into a particular school zone if they want to if they can afford it. It is choice by mortgage capacity. Property values are being driven up by this Labour Government in places like Epsom Remuera the Takapuna Grammar School zone the Mount Roskill zone and in places in Christchurch. If parents do not like the school that is next door to them but they cannot afford to buy or rent in those zones then they do not have any choice. 
Tell me how giving those parents the financial equivalent of their child’s education deprives them of choice. It is not logical to deny it. It is absolutely what we should be doing. It is how we should be fixing this situation whereby the Labour Government got rid of bulk funding stripped it away from those schools that wanted to have it and then took it back. The Government then realised it had created a bigger problem for itself so it has had to bring in this legislation that puts all the power for it in the hands of the State Services Commissioner. We will continue to vote against the bill. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on Part 2 of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). In particular I refer to new section 77HB which relates to the appointment of employees following the closure or merger of schools. Although not much has been made of this aspect in the bill I understand that there is also a Supplementary Order Paper to go with this. The bill deals with the matter of redundancies resulting from school mergers or closures which is a very topical subject at this time given the Government’s desire to proceed with some network reviews and properly I would imagine they will continue. 
Although each board is still a separate employer in the case of a merger or a closure an employee may be offered a similar position by another board in the same locality but without the need to comply with provisions in the Employment Act that require employers to advertise vacancies and give preference to persons who are best suited to the situation. 
I am very sympathetic to teachers and indeed all the communities families and children who face the prospect of school closures or mergers at the present time. However I do believe that schools recruiting teachers should have the merit of their applicants uppermost in their minds. In the case of a merger a teacher who has experience with one of the former schools might well be viewed as the best qualified but on a merit basis may not be. 
If alternative employment is offered then there is no entitlement to redundancy compensation but the select committee recommended that that be clarified so that among other things employment offered in another school refers to the replacement school or another school affected by the merger or closure. As a select committee we felt that this addition correction and modification to this bill would add value to all occasions where mergers and closures would take place not only now but in the future. I just want to add this as part of our contribution from United Future. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 18 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to the amendment to clause 5 in his name set out on Supplementary Order Paper 200 be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 77HA as set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 200 by inserting in subsection (1)(a) and (b) after the word “offered” in both places where it occurs the words “in writing”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 200 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 5 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The whole intent of this bill is contained in the title State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) and the reason why the intent is contained there is that it represents the centralisation of power into the State. Although the Minister may be proud of that and he obviously is because that is the intent of the Government the National Opposition is deeply opposed because the bill represents a turning away from community power. It represents a turning away from trusting the boards of trustees who are the real employers or should be—at least in law—of teachers. Instead as indeed other clauses indicate all the power is to be vested in the State Services Commissioner under the direct control of the Minister acting at ministerial direction so that the Government at all times is the principal and sole negotiator of agreements with teachers in collective contracts. 
Of course it is the intent of the Government that every single teacher in New Zealand in the public sector—in secondary schools and in primary schools—will be governed by a collective contract. I was surprised to hear one of the speakers Mr Jim Peters for the New Zealand First Party say he had remained a member of the Post Primary Teachers Association until 2002. Apparently that was because at least he knew what it was doing but unfortunately it lends credence to the power of the union; the power of the collective. When well-talented able people realise that that is the pathway to mediocrity then our teaching profession will expand and grow in the way that so many teachers—and I include Mr Peters—would actually wish it to do. 
After all as he said he was a founding member of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand and the whole purpose of that association was to break the chains with the Post Primary Teachers Association; to recognise that centralised State-controlled big unions big government were inimical to teacher quality teacher excellence and of course what that means is excellence in teaching for students be they in not-so-good schools or excellent schools. But the real focus should be back on that relationship. 
The way one does that is to empower the schools—that is boards of trustees the principal the community and the teachers who work in that school. I know that it is a fundamentally different philosophy to that espoused by Labour. I know that Labour’s pattern which it is proud of is State control at every level. That is its intent and this bill recognises that intent. That is why I am so surprised that United Future is lending its support to such an approach. 
The one thing that can be said about the Green Party is that at least it recognises the power of community. That is its raison d’être in fact. So it would say that State centralised control as represented by this bill is the wrong way to go. That is why the Greens vote against it. For National and ACT other parties that are making sensible votes today we say we want to empower communities also give freedom to parents and communities and actually give freedom to teachers. I would have thought that United Future—a party that believes in common sense—would take the same approach. Frankly I would have expected New Zealand First to take the same approach. I know that New Zealand First says it is taking a pragmatic approach to upcoming negotiations and so forth but this was its opportunity to make a philosophical statement about where it stood. That is the opportunity that it has lost. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to clause 1 “Title” I take the chance to respond to a contribution made by the New Zealand First member and former principal of—is it “Bay of Islands College”? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Northland College. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Northland College. I did not mean to be in any way disrespectful to Mr Peters but I could not off the top of my head remember. 
John Carter 
: Jim Peters. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Yes this is not about Winston Peters but his brother Jim Peters. He was—he is no longer a principal—a respected school principal and a member of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand which is also a respected organisation. I take this chance to respond to his comment that he was shocked to hear a former Minister speak as though the system should allow children from well-off backgrounds to have advantage over those who are not. He interpreted what I had said previously as allowing that. 
I want to make it absolutely clear what I said. The challenge I put to the Government was this: if the centralised system in this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) Bill is so good why not allow a choice? I am prepared to accept that maybe the Labour-led Government is right in this respect. I do not happen to think it is but if this centralised control over the employment of teachers and the negotiation of their employment arrangements is so good if it is good to recentralise that and bring it under the control of the State Services Commissioner then why not allow a choice? When I say “choice” I am prepared to say there are certain children in this country whose education costs the taxpayers a lot more. Let us be prepared to fund that extra money for those children’s education. Let us accept that some children have greater learning needs and deserve much more taxpayer support. Let us accept that proposition for the moment. 
 But for goodness’ sake why lock them into this one model? If this one model that the Government is now making totally centralised is so good why not let other models compete with it recognising that some children have educational disadvantage and putting more resource into that but surely give them the chance if they wish to to escape from a one-size-fits-all model. I am sure that Mr Jim Peters would know from his years of experience in education—as should his other good colleague from Northland; the other New Zealand First member who was also a school principal—that children differ enormously. It is absolute nonsense to think that one size fits all. So why not allow the opportunity for those who do not believe in this centralised control model where inevitably the most skilled teachers will never be paid as much as they are worth? Members all know that. Where there is big government and big union the most skilled people are never paid as much as they are worth because big union always protects the less skilled or the less good if you like. 
That is what history shows us. Poorer teachers in education are paid more than they are worth and the best teachers are not paid anywhere near what they are worth. It is the big government big union that stopped that. It has stopped it for generations. There was a glimmer of opportunity in the 1990s to break out of that but we never succeeded in breaking out of it. I acknowledge that; we never succeeded in breaking out of that big government big union model. 
It is not just that good teachers deserve to be paid more and freeing up the system would enable that. It is not just that. It is the consequence of keeping good teachers in the classroom teaching children that is so important because children benefit and that is my concern as I speak to the title of this bill. The children seem to be the forgotten people in this legislation. It is all about schooling. It ought to be all about our children and advancing their learning needs regardless of disadvantage; helping the most disadvantaged more. It is known that the one-size-fits-all model does not work. International research shows that New Zealand’s good students do well by international comparison. Students in the bottom 20 to 30 percent are some of the worst performers relative to our best students in the whole of the developed world. What this should be is a chance to change that. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 The last two speeches have unfortunately rather than focus upon the title of the bill really just poured out a pile of simplistic slogans. The comment by Dr Wayne Mapp that this bill represents a turning away from trusting trustees has to be compared with the statement made by Dr Lockwood Smith that during the 1990s we failed to achieve the breaking out because the point is that this legislation is no turn back at all from anywhere. It only modifies the circumstances that were left behind when National went out of office in 1999 when there was collective wage bargaining by the State Services Commission with powers to delegate that to the Ministry of Education. Dr Lockwood Smith agrees with me there. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What I said was we’d never broken out—we did not succeed. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: There was a difference then in the sense that some schools were bulk-funded for teacher salaries and those schools most certainly would have made sure that their teachers’ salaries were docked if they withdrew their labour. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Topped up salaries. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: So that was a quite different sort of circumstance. But the point has to be made and I think we have to make it again that the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) amends the situation left behind by National. That situation was anomalous in the sense that boards of trustees were the employers of teachers but the State Services Commission had to negotiate their salaries. That situation created an incentive for some boards not to deduct payment from their teachers and that is simply what this bill is about. It is also about trying to prevent that invidious industrial mechanism of rostering off which New Zealand First claims should never have been allowed. It was immoral and unethical. We did something about it during our particular time—it was not employed during that period—because it really does not create a level playing field. 
Therefore far from being a pathway to mediocrity this bill is purely and simply a mechanism to ensure that the forthcoming negotiations are based around the same sorts of relationships that exist in all other industrial negotiations. It may not be perfect for the future. National and ACT can talk about what is perfect for the future by going to the next election telling people what they should have done for 9 years and saying that they are going to do it for the next 3 years anyhow. It is a bit like taking off the surtax is it not? That required New Zealand First to come along and give National a little moral fortitude. But the fact is that in between times there will be industrial negotiations and some pretty untidy legislation will have to operate if this bill does not go through. So New Zealand First says that the bill is OK. It is an amendment to the State Sector Act—as left by the previous National Government after it went out of power in 1999—but it is a necessary amendment to create the least amount of chaos in the forthcoming negotiations. 
We think it is sensible to take this action and so therefore we will be supporting the bill. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 We are now on to the title of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). The title reminds us what this Government really thinks of teachers in terms of being professional. What other group of professionals has to march up and down the street to get a pay rise? Why do we continue to treat teachers like this when they have the most important job? This Government would not tolerate it if accountants or lawyers had to march up and down the street to get a pay rise. But who taught the accountants and lawyers to be accountants and lawyers? Teachers are the most important group of professionals in the country yet we insist on treating them with a collective herd mentality by bringing them under the control of the State Services Commissioner. 
Brian Donnelly said: “National left it in a bad situation so all we are doing is making it worse.” That is like saying: “Six sleeping pills are bad for you so go and take the whole bottle.” Why not throw this whole bill out start all over again and go back to removing State control of teachers? This legislation is like saying: “This is bad but let’s make it worse.” and it will not improve the situation at all. Members have heard speakers say that the bill will guarantee there will not be any more strikes. There will be more strikes—of course there will be more strikes. This bill will not prevent any strikes. As soon as there is unionised labour there are strikes. 
People who came to the Education and Science Committee said that when teachers were still being paid by boards of trustees who chose to pay them it was an incentive for them to go on strike. What an insult to those teachers. As I said earlier in this debate I was on a board of trustees that elected not to pay the teachers who went on strike. Those teachers still went on strike because they felt they were striking for a principle. We might have agreed with it or we might not have but the teachers still were honourable in their beliefs and their purposes. Not being paid did not mean that teachers decided not to go on strike the next time there was a strike or a rolling stoppage. 
This bill will be a nightmare. Just thinking about the rolling stoppages and the requirements under this bill for boards of trustees to inform the State Services Commission of the names of all those who choose not to go on strike is a total nightmare. It is a one-size-fits-all bill. It is the “Punish the Teachers Bill” which has been introduced to try to reduce the fiscal risk to boards of trustees and the State but it will not do that at all. If independent schools can take the risk why should State school boards of trustees not be able to take the risk too? That is why they are independent. They do not need to be brought under the control of the State Services Commissioner. 
I heard someone from United Future say that this is different because it is taxpayers’ money. Taxpayers’ money also goes into paying teachers at independent schools and integrated schools but we are not bringing them under the control of the State Services Commissioner. 
Stephen Franks 
: Not yet. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: As Stephen Franks said not yet. It is probably on its way and I probably should not speak too loud because they will be next—certainly integrated schools will be. They are already under the Minister’s beady eye to be brought into the State sector. 
We trust those boards to make decisions on whether to pay their teachers if they go on strike. Why should we not trust the boards of State schools to make the same decision? It is a non sequitur to argue that it is not taxpayers’ money because it is a certain amount of taxpayers’ money. 
This State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) that we are passing through under urgency is the Minister’s way of punishing teachers for embarrassing him before the last election. Mark my words: teachers will be out on the street again before the next election unless we have an early one when the Government gets wind of it. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a call on behalf of United Future on the title of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). We have heard various things today about this bill and I think it is very important that the title reflects what is happening. The State sector is looked after by the State Services Commissioner and he rather than school trustees is being put into place to handle the elements that this bill addresses—that is when a strike is announced he through appointment by the Minister can step in and do something. As it sits the existing legislation is very untidy and needs to be fixed and that is what this whole bill is about. As the last speaker said if it is not fixed then many teachers will be upset there will be strikes there will be difficulties with people being paid while they are striking and there will be all sorts of dilemmas that the boards of trustees have to put up with and try to sort out. This bill is set up purely and simply to provide a clear track to sort out these difficulties and therefore avoid the possibility of what has been alluded to. If it is left it will become just a philosophical noise as National has talked about. It will be a highway that goes nowhere. This bill goes somewhere and tidies up a whole lot of loose ends. It is really a pleasure to commend this stage of the bill to the Committee on behalf of United Future and we will be voting in favour of it. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 As we debate the title of this bill I make a genuine complaint about bills whose titles do not tell anyone what they mean. When I was told that I had to assist in debating the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) I could not remember that this is a bill in which I had been taking an interest because of what it does to employment relationships. It would have been a very small thing for this bill to have something descriptive in its title that would mean that when people looked at the bill as it went through its stages or saw it on the statute book in the future they would have some idea that it effectively reinstated the State Services Commission as the employer and shunted the boards of trustees aside in terms of the most tense or difficult part of the negotiation of wages terms and conditions—the annual collective agreement round. It would have been a very small thing to have the title reflect in just two or three words what this bill actually does. 
The title might have been something like “Bulk Funding Repeal Completion Bill” because the bill is a consequence of the repeal of bulk funding. On a more depressing tone it might have been something like “Teachers Indenture Bill” but the bill does not have the kinds of provisions it ought to have if we were really going to liberate teachers from their current semi-feudal relationship with the mass employer. The title should reflect what the bill does and that is try to cement New Zealand into a pattern whose days are numbered. The teaching “profession” should not be a profession in name only. It is a profession in name only because of the collective agreement that this bill is trying to buttress and reinforce. 
No occupation that involves the application of judgment in the way that teaching does will have its practitioners respected as professionals when they are all on industrial factory-type terms and conditions of employment. Real professions are marked by peer review and assessment. Real professions are marked by an enormous range of incomes reflecting subtle calculations of the contribution that real professionals make. If we followed the pattern around the world I say to Mr Mallard and if we were trying to bring in a bill that really treated teachers as they should be treated we would have schools with a wide range of ownership and employment. We would have schools where the teachers were all partners in ownership. We would have schools where the teachers were principals or directors of companies and the heads of departments all had titles like “director”. We would have schools that were charities and run by trusts as we do now. But most of all we would have schools where the Government had absolutely no role in setting their terms and conditions of employment. It would have a role of providing money to those schools which would then decide how best to achieve their objectives and satisfy the parents. 
That is the way that professionals work all around the world. What profession does not have peer review? What profession has its terms and conditions of employment set by a State Services Commission? Not architects not lawyers not doctors not engineers. Even doctors in our hospitals essentially are able to benchmark themselves against people who are in self-employment—people who are in partnerships or who are specialists and who can therefore set terms and conditions of employment and can experiment free of the great clobbering machine that a Minister unavoidably has to supervise. 
I have not put up an amendment to the title because it would have been futile but it should not blandly state “State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3)”. It could actually be something like “State Sector Reinforcement (Teacher Indenture) Bill”. It is no wonder at all that teachers find themselves disrespected when the worst teacher in a particular range is treated almost the same in real terms as the best teacher. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. I want to thank members for their readiness to stand and support me on this legislation. It is interesting that an afternoon in the Chamber is quite an educational process for people. I want to say a special thankyou to members of the Education and Science Committee in the House at the moment: Lynne Pillay and especially Brian Donnelly who chaired the committee. [ 
Interruption 
] And Bernie Ogilvy; I apologise. There is no doubt that the bill is a better bill as a result of their work. 
I will express slight amazement at the Green Party’s voting. Their voting against the bill does not surprise me very much but their voting against the improvements made in the select committee—lining up with ACT and the National Party on that—really surprised me. This is a bill around which some unholy alliances have been built. That ACT and the National Party voted for teachers being paid while on strike is a really interesting and novel approach although not one that I would expect from them. 
One can work one’s way right back on this bill. There was a New Zealand Educational Institute official whose name I will not mention who when this bill was first mooted indicated to me that this measure is what the private sector had always done and the current position had to go some time. This bill makes it very clear that people do not get paid to be on strike. That is the proper approach and as a long-term trade unionist I know that that is part of the deal. 
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. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill. In doing so I want to pay tribute to all who were involved during the submission process. I include in that the unions—the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association—which the other side of the House is so intent on bad-mouthing and the boards of trustees that gave very common-sense practical and constructive advice. This bill has improved it has been made better and that is certainly because of the good submissions we received. 
This bill deals with technical redundancy and there is some real common sense in that. The bill recognises that the top priority in our education sector is job priority—that is the main focus—and that in a redundancy situation people do not actually double dip. That is they do not keep their job and get paid redundancy compensation. I also say as a proud trade unionist that unlike the Opposition I do support the idea that if people are in the position of withdrawing their labour in a strike situation they should not get paid for it. That is supported by all union members and everyone involved on this side of the House. It is quite strange that we hear contrary arguments from the Opposition. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to point out to Dr Wayne Mapp one issue that he seems to be overlooking—that is the New Zealand Law Society which I presume he was once a member of is in fact akin to a compulsory union. I am not too certain how the compulsion in that particular fact reduces the professionalism of lawyers. I would also like to make the same point made by my colleague Pita Paraone who asked how come New Zealand First is defending this bill and why Government members do not get up and try to defend their bill. So it was good to hear a little contribution from Lynne Pillay. 
New Zealand First has been criticised for cosying up to Labour on this bill. That is not true at all. If it had not been for the firm and determined opposition of New Zealand First to some of the draconian measures in the bill I doubt whether we would have been able to force through some of the changes. We are very pleased to see those changes although I have already mentioned that it was through the real effort of the select committee working together as a whole. 
Dr Wayne Mapp once again talks about National coming from a perspective of freedom. It must be that National has had a road to Damascus experience since 1999. As I have pointed out continuously this bill reduces some of the powers of the unions not adds to them and modifies the industrial framework that was left behind when National left office in 1999. 
But in this third reading I want to get on to some of the other points because I think we have made many of the points about the legislation. No party is more supportive than New Zealand First of  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 and the concepts behind it and of school trustees and the School Trustees Association. There are some concerns and I say to Government members that the school trustees are feeling somewhat sidelined not necessarily over this particular legislation but on a number of other issues where they feel they have not been adequately consulted by this particular administration. Yet it is critical that we maintain the importance of school trustees within our schools. There are elections coming up and I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the many thousands of New Zealanders who have offered their services to represent their communities through the school trustee role to ensure their community values are reflected in school practices and that community priorities are reflected in the curriculum and the budgets of their schools. I believe that  
Tomorrow’s Schools 
 by introducing parents to the decision making and creating a real partnership between the professionals and the parents’ representatives of the communities was a very very favourable step; it strengthened education immensely. Members might remember that I was one who worked under the old education boards and under the new system. 
I also have to mention that I am the only member in this House who was a principal of a bulk-funded school. We have heard a lot about bulk funding from all these people who know the ins and outs of bulk funding but I can say I have had that particular experience. I can say now that I was very very proud of that school and the condition it was in when I left. I can also say that I am still very very proud of that school. It is amazingly successful and a very very good school—even though it no longer operates under a bulk-funding regime. 
So the question has to be asked: is it the bulk funding that created the very good practices within that school or were there other factors? I would have to argue that bulk funding was only a very minor factor within the really important factors that make a good school—and certainly that have made Whangarei Intermediate a very good school. Those factors are the quality of staff the leadership of principals and the quality of school trustees and the way they get involved with schools and make decisions for the benefit of the students and teachers within those schools and the parents. That is what makes a good school. 
We have heard a lot of simplistic slogans—and it really worries me a little bit—about whether this is where what are called the centre-right parties are planning to go. I think it is retrogressive. I believe that if we want to achieve a high-quality education system we have to go beyond some of the simplistic slogans of the 1990s that when put under the test of practicalities and pragmatism actually fall apart. We talk about vouchers. What good are vouchers to Te Hapua? We talk about zoning. In fact it was the National Government with the support of ACT that reintroduced zoning. So all these so-called simplistic slogans which are to be the magic bullets will not be the magic bullets. I say that if that is all those parties can come up with for their future plan when those things have been tested and found to be wanting we will have real difficulties. 
In terms of the legislation itself I believe that rather than focusing on those theoretical issues we need to focus on the issues that will drive our education system forward—and we certainly need to value our teachers. The unfortunate thing about our industrial relations is that it is in the interests of the unions to continue holding our teachers in a state of angst and unhappiness and to have them feeling dissatisfied with their roles so that they can utilise that hostility against the Government in the adversarial model we now use. I believe that we need to look at that adversarial model—at whether it is the sort of model we can utilise in order to have a modern education system. 
How does a nation create an education system that is productive constructive forward-looking and requires so much energy for the children in its care if the teachers—the very ones who drive it forward—are kept in a state of constant hostility? Therefore the adversarial model does need questioning. However between now and the next round of collective bargaining we certainly do not have the time to be able to go through that whole process. So there are practical issues involved. The practical issue simply is: do we maintain the structure that was left behind by the previous National Government which has been shown to be faulty or do we make the necessary modifications so that we can go into the next round with a more level playing field? 
New Zealand First says that common sense and pragmatism say to make those necessary adjustments now. We can go through this big debate—that suddenly National wants to go into again after all these years—between the bargaining time and the next election. At this particular point in time we have to look at what will occur over the next 6 months. As a result New Zealand First supports this legislation—most of all because it will get rid of the invidious tactic which Post Primary Teachers Association members in particular use of rostering students off. They say they will not teach third-formers for example on a particular day. That puts boards of trustees and parents into the position of having to break the law. That is not fair; it is not justified. We need a model and a mechanism that certainly allows for the withdrawal of labour but also allows for withdrawal in such a way that people lose their payment etc. for it. It is a fair arrangement and I think this bill takes us into a much fairer bargaining environment than we had before. Therefore New Zealand First will support the bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens have not been convinced to not oppose this bill. We remain disappointed that the Committee of the whole House did not support the amendment to delete clause 5 from the bill. 
The Greens also strenuously object to the inference from Government members that teachers are engaged in a form of double-dipping when they are entitled to redundancy and then find themselves employed in another school. No double-dipping is going on and this bill does nothing about that because it does not happen. At present teachers who take redundancy when their schools have closed and then later get a job in another school are required—and have agreed in the collective contract—to repay or refund their redundancy payments. Therefore they are not getting paid twice but are making the best possible choices for themselves and their employment in schools around them in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Teachers are not in any way asking for any alternative or different approach to that. No one is seeking that some form of double-dipping be allowed and implications by Government members that teachers are asking for that are mischievous and untrue. 
With the passing of this bill the situation for those teachers is in fact much worse because they will no longer have the choice of taking redundancy when their schools close. Where the Minister offers an equivalent position—and whether a position is considered to be equivalent to their current employment conditions is the Minister’s decision—those teachers will be required either to take that position or find themselves unemployed with no redundancy. In this bill the Minister does not consider the nature of the employment teachers are taking the culture of the schools in which they may be forced to work and the fact that teachers are entitled to choose whom they work with and whether they go to a school with one or another management structure or cultural approach. This bill in effect strips away that choice and that opportunity for teachers. 
It is true that this bill is much better now than it was when it first came to the Education and Science Committee and the committee deserves a great deal of credit for the work that was done. None the less the bill is still infected with the philosophy that the Minister is able to alter collective agreements by legislation rather than through bargaining. If the Minister were seeking to manage the consequential employment difficulties that would arise from school closures—that is that he would not be able to find teachers to teach in new schools because of the destruction of relationships through the process—he should instead have negotiated and by agreement with teachers sought to find ways to remedy or find a better process when schools close. 
Teachers are open to those opportunities and those discussions but the Minister has made no attempt to do so. Instead he has taken the same approach to this issue as he has to the network reviews—that is he has a desire for a particular outcome and refuses to engage properly with the affected parties: the teachers and communities in the case of network reviews and the teachers over these redundancy arrangements. Instead he chooses to use his legislative powers to push changes through regardless of the damage he is doing to communities and the Government’s relationship with those communities. 
The Minister is prepared to exchange the potential for good-faith bargaining for a legislative quick-fix that will without doubt cause more problems for teachers who are already under huge amounts of pressure as well as the Government which is wanting to have relationships with schools teachers and communities in the future. So the Greens will continue to oppose this bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I have heard no arguments today to persuade the ACT party to support this bill. All we have heard this afternoon are the same tired old patronising “we know best for everybody” arguments. 
The Hon Brian Donnelly attacked the National Party for not doing anything. He did not actually inform the House that he was Associate Minister of Education for 2 years during that time and I do not recall any flashes of brilliance coming from him in terms of changing things then. 
This legislation is the example of what happens when more and more power is devolved to the State and taken away from communities. This is the second bill in a row today that we will be passing that enables the Minister to exercise more control over the education sector. The Minister is punishing teachers for striking. This bill is not just about the principle that teachers will not get paid while striking and it is very simplistic for both the Minister and the bill’s supporters to allege that. Of course that is what happened when this Government got rid of bulk funding and landed boards of trustees in the situation where they were the meat in the sandwich. 
But this bill is not just about that. If it were just about that principle as the Minister claimed earlier what about integrated and independent schools as I mentioned earlier? When those teachers strike will this Government hurry through legislation in urgency insisting that the employers of those teachers cannot pay them if they strike? What if those employers—those boards or the boards of trustees in State schools—actually sympathise with their teachers? This is exactly what the union members said when they came to the select committee with their submissions. They said a lot of boards of trustees chose to pay their teachers in order to avoid stress—and I will get on to more of that in a moment. 
This bill is the Minister’s attempt to desperately try to right a wrong that he has already created and he is digging himself further into a hole. The boards of trustees are in essence the representatives of the parents of the children of that school. They are the customers the consumers. They try to have their say on how the school is run and what sort of education is delivered to their children. We have already seen an erosion of parents’ power on boards of trustees because the Minister has imposed more and more compliance costs on those boards. Their time is taken up more with complying with all the legislation rather than having any sort of meaningful say in the quality of education their children receive. They have absolutely no say in how to reward good teachers and get rid of bad teachers. That is entirely removed from them. 
The centre-right knows what the top priority of education is. We heard Lynne Pillay say in this House that the top priority of education was jobs. So we have this huge bureaucracy and taxpayers have all that money taken off them to keep people in jobs? Excuse me but I thought education was about teaching children to learn and become autonomous and independent so that they can go out and support themselves later in life. That is what the centre-right knows education is all about and that is why the centre-right says give parents the freedom to choose. Bring in student entitlements vouchers tax credits—whatever they are to be called—it does not matter. 
We heard Brian Donnelly say that simplistic options do not work. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Absolutely. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That is typical of a politician who thinks he knows best and that ordinary parents cannot choose and do not know what is best for their children. I do not know what is best for Brian Donnelly’s children and he does not know what is best for my children. Politicians do not know what is best for children; parents know what is best. Families know and they do not have that choice. 
Peter Brown 
: Not always. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes sometimes they do get it wrong but they do not get it wrong as often as the Government does. I will guarantee that. 
Jim Peters said he was championing the cause of the Post Primary Teachers Association. I wish he had read the association’s submission before he came into the House and said that because I would like to tell members what the association said when it came before the select committee. It drew our attention to the fact that the Government’s explanatory note to the bill suggested that there was an ill to be remedied. To remedy that ill the Government proposed to confer on the commissioner—effectively the Secretary for Education by delegation of the Act—all the rights duties and powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act. As the Post Primary Teachers Association very correctly pointed out the Secretary for Education—the Government—already has huge powers to intervene in collective bargaining pass regulations and dictate to teachers what they can and cannot do. No other employer—I am not saying this it comes from the Post Primary Teachers Association—has the full powers of the State at its disposal. 
The second important issue the association brought to the select committee’s attention was the fact that the Government had said that whether teachers might or might not lose pay be suspended or locked out was not an incentive for them to take industrial action. The Post Primary Teachers Association objected strongly to the use of the word “incentive” in terms of why its members decided to strike or not to strike. As it said when making decisions about strike action teachers are aware that their pay is at risk and that suspension or lockout could also result. Of course they are aware of that and take it into consideration but more often than not their decisions to take industrial action are driven by the belief that the position adopted by the Government in bargaining will be to the disadvantage of students. 
There may well be some teachers who are cynically opportunist but many boards of trustees—as I have said and as the Post Primary Teachers Association pointed out—chose to support the position of teachers rather than that of the ministry because the implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement was increasing the workload on teachers. That is why teachers decided to take industrial action and the boards of trustees as good employers were concerned about the stress on their employees and they had the right to support them then. Under this bill the rights of boards of trustees to support their own teachers is being taken away. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I rise to speak on the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). Firstly I wish to thank all the submitters to this bill who came to the Education and Science Committee: the New Zealand School Trustees Association the New Zealand Educational Institute the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Law Society. I also thank my fellow select committee members and the chair who did an outstanding job under quite a bit of time pressure and also under the pressure of the exacting word-use needed to ensure we had this thing crafted correctly so that we we could stand up and hand on to the nation a bill that was very effective from the schools’ point of view—school trustees parents and children—and certainly from the point of view of teachers. So for that I am very grateful. 
On the third reading of this bill it is good to remember the reasons it is here. There are a very simple couple of reasons why we are making this law. One is a very common-sense concept: to ensure we do not support the concept of “no pay for no work”. In other words those who are against this bill are saying they want pay for everybody who does not work. I find that an absolute shocker. I really found it difficult to hear some of the people not supporting this bill upholding this incredibly different view. If people do not work they should not get paid—and that is as simple as anyone should be able to place it. It is for that prime reason this bill has come into the House to become law. 
Moreover it also assists boards of trustees in times of strikes so that they do not have to get caught up in heated arguments and conflicts with staff whom of course they have employed. They do not wish to get entangled in the options of whether they should pay them or not pay them or of how to support them. This bill clearly sets out the fact that the State Services Commissioner takes on that role in an impersonal manner and therefore frees boards of trustees from that conflict of interest. I think that that is a very very sound process when we consider what happens with the mums dads and children to whom they are responsible. 
Overall United Future is supportive of this bill. At this stage we believe that all the bugs in it when it came to the select committee have been taken out. I thank members for the occasion to speak on the bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very happy to rise to support the third reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). I also want to congratulate the select committee on the work it did on this bill. I think the amendments that have been made at the select committee are extremely useful and will contribute to the usefulness of the bill as a whole. 
The bill corrects an anomaly that exists in respect of collective negotiations for teachers. I think it is extraordinarily unfair to expect boards of trustees to have to make a call or have the power to decide whether teachers are paid when they are on strike. It is often a very emotional issue. Not surprisingly they are very reluctant to exercise that power. This bill means that striking teachers will be treated the same as any other employees who go on strike. In fact we could say that it is “one law for all workers” and that is why I find it very strange that National and ACT are not willing to support the bill. This bill will go a long way towards making the roles of boards of trustees a lot easier. 
I support the bill and look forward to the rest of its passage through the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Listening to the honourable member who has just resumed her seat one could get the impression that this State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) is purely a technical bill. I think she said that it just fixes up an anomaly to enable the better negotiation of teachers’ salaries. She made the point it was good that teachers will all come under one law. 
We also heard another view during the Committee stage and that is that the bill covers one of the more important issues in our country. This bill is about the negotiation of the employment arrangements of our teachers. It empowers the State Services Commissioner to have all the powers of an employer under the Employment Relations Act to negotiate employment arrangements for our teachers despite the fact that the Education Act makes the employers of our teachers the boards of trustees. Far from being just a technical issue this issue goes to the heart of our country’s education system. 
Anyone who knows anything about education or schooling knows that it is great teachers who make a difference. All research shows that. Great teachers make a difference in our schooling. Therefore if the system this legislation puts in place does not allow for the employment arrangements that enable great teachers to be employed and great teachers to be retained—because their employment arrangements reward their efforts and reward their skills—then the legislation cuts at the heart of the schooling of our children in this country. That is why I say that this legislation is far from technical; it is actually very very important for the future of our country’s children. 
I know there are some who would argue—and I think the Labour member Miss Mackey who just resumed her seat seemed to say—that one employment arrangement is better for all our teachers. I think that that is what she was implying but I do not happen personally to agree with that. I think that different employment arrangements enable differently skilled people to be employed. The skills required in teaching are not the same for every child. Some children require different skills from their teachers. Different ways of teaching can work better with different children. So I am not saying that one skill is the best; I am saying we need to have a system that can employ teachers in a way where the skills that work with the children they are teaching can be recognised and rewarded. 
This view is different from the one held by Labour members of Parliament. I am prepared to concede that my view though quite deeply held may not be right. I am prepared to concede that Miss Mackey and her Labour colleagues United Future members and New Zealand First members who support this legislation which recentralises employment arrangements for teachers and gives more power to the State Services Commissioner may be more right than I am. Maybe their view is more correct than mine but I argue that the education of our children is too important for us to take the chance on having one system imposed across the entire school system. 
I argued during the Committee stage that if the Government is so right about recentralising the employment arrangements for teachers—which is a move backwards from what was in the mind of the Picot task force that preceded the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms—and steps back from that and recentralises employment arrangements for teachers surely it makes sense to allow some options some choices. If the Government believes that what it is imposing on this country is so right why not allow some options? If this legislation is so good then allowing options will not change anything. People would automatically choose to go with this system. 
I put to the Labour Minister of Education the Hon Trevor Mallard and his colleagues: why not allow State schools that do not like this to have choice? Some State schools like Avondale College and Rangitoto College did so well under the Tomorrow’s Schools regime of the 1990s and just blossomed. Avondale College was not in a high-decile area but that school blossomed as it was able to employ and reward great teachers. The bulk funding arrangements of the 1990s while far from perfect at least gave that school some freedom and flexibility to employ teachers who could really make a difference with their children in that community. 
If Labour believes this legislation is so right why not amend it to enable schools with boards of trustees that do not want the State Services Commissioner to impose one employment arrangement over all their teachers to opt out of the system? Why not allow those schools to negotiate different employment arrangements with their teachers? That question goes to the heart of the success of our education system. Why not allow more freedom more choice? All of history shows us that more freedom allows greater progress. We can look at the Soviet regimes where they imposed control over everything—and got no progress. If we kill the spirit of freedom we kill enterprise and progress. 
I say to the Labour Government that we should not argue too much about what is right or wrong with this legislation but the legislation should allow a choice. The Government should allow the State schools that do not want imposed on them what the State Services Commissioner might negotiate the right to negotiate with their own teachers—within a budgetary constraint so they cannot spend endless amounts of taxpayers’ money or any more taxpayers’ money than any other school gets to spend. Surely it makes sense to allow teachers to be employed under slightly different arrangements. 
I go one step further. I say that if this Labour-led Government is so confident that what this legislation is doing is so right why does it not allow real choice for parents. Why not allow State schools to choose to negotiate separately with their own teachers—so they can reward skilled teachers; so they can reward teachers who put greater effort into the well-being of the children—and why not also allow parents to take their children to whatever school they choose? If this monopolistic one-size-fits-all State system is so right why does the Government not allow parents to take the funding that we taxpayers provide to them to whatever school they choose? 
I say too that where a child has greater educational need let that funding be greater. There is no problem. Let us recognise that some children have more need. We should fund that need more but when it comes to the schooling of our children why lock them in to a system of one-size-fits-all? 
 It is interesting to see who is snuggling up to the Government today. On different days different parties around this House seem to snuggle up to the Government and today it is United Future and New Zealand First. Those parties in this Parliament—United Future and New Zealand First—say: “Oh no we’re not about children having the chance for a better education at all.” They say: “No no. We want a State monopolistic system of one-size-fits-all and to hell with the children who don’t prosper and learn well under that system. Let them just suffer.” That is what United Future and New Zealand First are saying in supporting Labour. 
However National says we should allow our schools to do things differently and allow them to employ teachers who work for their children. Then those schools will be different from the schools in a national monopolistic system. The employment arrangements would be different if we allowed that but I can assure this House that we would get better educational outcomes for our disadvantaged children if the system allowed schools to employ teachers under different arrangements. If parents had real choice we would see the State system start to respond to parental needs and the needs of our children’s education. At the moment there is no pressure on it to do so but it is time that happened. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a third time.