Mapp Wayne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12164] 
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.