Carter Chris: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Carter Chris: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:431] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I rise firstly to ask the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson why she would not support my colleague Trevor Mallard’s amendment that exempts teachers from the probationary period and inserts a new section 67C in clause 7. 
As many members of this Committee will know until a month or so ago I was privileged to be New Zealand’s Minister of Education. During the election campaign I also was privileged to be Labour’s education spokesperson and I occasionally had the opportunity to debate with Mrs Tolley National’s new Minister of Education. Sadly she would never appear on television or on Radio New Zealand National with me. I am not sure why. Perhaps she was a little bit nervous about it. But she did come to the occasional New Zealand Educational Institute meeting. 
One of the meetings was held in Rotorua where I was ably represented by my colleague Steve Chadwick. We saw on the Television One programme  
Tonight 
 the hapless Mrs Tolley saying at that Rotorua meeting that teachers would be exempt from the 90-day trial period. I understand that Mrs Tolley came into the Chamber earlier this evening and denied saying what all of New Zealand had seen her say on the Television One programme  
Tonight 
. I can also say unequivocally that when Mrs Tolley and I attended a New Zealand Educational Institute meeting in the Epsom electorate she said when asked a question about support staff in schools—not teachers; the people who do invaluable work supporting students and teachers in their quality teaching and learning— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you would consider whether the contribution from the member addresses Part 2. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Chairperson an amendment that certainly has not been ruled out by you or by anyone else in the Chair goes to the very question of whether teachers should be covered. It is known on this side of the Chamber as the “Tolley amendment” because it attempts to ensure that she is not made a liar by her colleagues on the other side of the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: At this point the member who has the call has not contravened any of the institutional expectations of Parliament. The member who just spoke to the point of order did I believe in a roundabout way—[ 
Interruption 
] I am ruling on this. You can shake your head but we are not going to get into any usage of words that are not accepted in this Chamber. I am not going to rule out the direction the member is going in as long as he ties it to the amendments that he mentioned. But he should be very cautious of what words he might use in that regard. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am just reinforcing the rationale behind why I believe the Minister should support Mr Mallard’s amendments. I will continue. Mr Brownlee may have intervened to protect Mrs Tolley’s reputation. He should save that for question time where I will look forward to questioning and exploring this issue further. 
I can say unequivocally that when I was present at a New Zealand Educational Institute meeting in the Epsom electorate Mrs Tolley in response to a question on whether support staff would be included in the 90-day period said they would not. Today as we look at this legislation we can see that they and teachers and other staff working at schools are included. We were told by the National Party during the election that it was time for a change. Well this is not a change that the education sector was expecting. In fact it is a change that the sector was told by Mrs Tolley would not happen. 
Earlier tonight while working in my room but listening to the debate—as I am sure all members throughout this building are doing—I heard John Hayes the National MP for the Wairarapa area say that this trial period could not possibly apply to teachers because teachers are employed by the Ministry of Education. That is the level of ignorance of in his case a quite experienced and senior National Party MP! I have to say to him that teachers are employed by boards of trustees. Boards of trustees will now have the right to sack a teacher in the first 90 days of his or her employment. That is not something that schoolteachers were expecting thanks to Mrs Tolley. 
Indeed my colleague Sue Moroney read out earlier this evening—and in a few minutes I might reinforce what she was talking about—the release put out by the New Zealand Educational Institute expressing its deep concerns about its inability to discuss this legislation. All New Zealanders who are listening to the debate or who have any interest in what is happening in their Parliament are seeing this legislation being rammed through Parliament with no chance for teachers workers employers or anybody else who has an interest in the legislation to have an input. I have to say that every New Zealander should be passionately interested in this legislation because it will touch the lives ultimately of every one of them. Nobody in our country has the chance to have an input into it least of all teachers who when this legislation is passed will be trapped into having a period of insecurity. 
My colleague Mr Mallard who like me was privileged at one time to be a Labour Minister of Education talked about the impact of this legislation on our schools and early childhood centres. We have about 2600 schools in this country of which about 30 percent—about 800—have fewer than 20 employees.