Peters Jim: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12181] 
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 That member was the Minister until 1996 and was superseded by Wyatt Creech.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.