Peck Mark: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12161] 
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.