Tanczos Nandor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10634] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) on behalf of the Green Party and to inform the House that the Greens will be supporting this bill to the select committee. We have made no commitment to support the bill further than that but we think it should go to the select committee so that we can hear the submissions and work through the numerous issues in the bill. 
We think there is some merit in the bill particularly from the point of view of school boards and Brian Donnelly has already canvassed some of those points. It is clear that school boards are increasingly responsible for the administrative management of schools. Those functions take precious hours from committed volunteers—hours that would otherwise be devoted to the educational needs of the schools and the children who attend them. Recent changes in the provision of school housing for example have put a significantly greater administrative burden on schools while putting school boards in an additional power relationship with their employees—that is the teachers they work with. 
It is important that members in this House remember that boards of trustees are volunteers from the community. Some of them have management responsibilities in their jobs and day-to-day lives but if a board is to be truly representative of its community many of those trustees will be ordinary mums and dads. Many of them will never have had to bear the responsibilities peculiar to the role of an employer and it can take a real toll on the individuals put into those positions. People put themselves forward for those roles because they are committed to their school and to the best educational outcomes for their children and they have to deal with significant and serious management issues in the role they have taken on. 
The Greens have a great deal of sympathy for school trustees and for the boards that did not dock teachers’ pay during past industrial disputes because they had a genuine and legitimate desire to maintain good relations with their staff. We think it is a significant obligation to place on boards especially if they are supporting the teachers during an industrial dispute. Those disputes of course are not between teachers and the school but between teachers and the Government and boards have had to deal with being in the middle of those disputes. Schools and boards bear the effects of the disputes but they have no role in managing them through to a satisfactory and expeditious conclusion. We think there is real merit in removing the obligations on boards to dock pay. It would be helpful to school trustees and to the boards because they would not have to take up that responsibility and face the conflict that then develops in their relationship with their teachers. 
It is also true that teachers who strike should expect to have their pay docked which is one of the trade-offs of industrial action. No one wants to have his or her pay docked under any circumstances of course. It is a hard world and people struggle and teaching is not exactly an overpaid profession. But in industrial disputes it is one of the costs recognised by unions and unionised workers. The fact is that the pay will be docked within the current process for industrial disputes. Whether it is done by the board or by the ministry this bill does not alter that basic fact. 
The Greens also agree with the position of the Post Primary Teachers Association on many issues and in particular that this seems especially punitive and unnecessary legislation on the part of the Minister. We think the Minister could be concentrating on lots of other more useful things in the education portfolio than simply reorganising who takes the money off the teachers. The education system remains under-resourced and we draw particular attention to the area of special needs. The devotion of ministerial resources to that and other educational areas should be a greater priority notwithstanding that some aspects of this bill have merit. We think the Minister could have been spending his time on more constructive things. 
We have a number of particular problems with the bill. One of them is around the new powers of the commissioner. We completely disagree with the power the commissioner will have to fine boards that do not provide information about which of their teachers are on strike. That provision is disgraceful. It takes money out of the school budget for an administrative purpose that is not related to the provision of quality education to our children. That punitive action against schools is completely inappropriate. 
As I have already foreshadowed we are voting the bill to the select committee. We expect to see some amendments made there and we have made no commitment beyond that. Some members say the Greens should be voting against the bill but I do not see that as a reasonable position to take. A more constructive position would be to support the bill to select committee and then seek amendments on the areas we disagree with. I note that Mr Rodney Hide said that the best reason for opposing the bill was because it was put up by Mr Mallard. I realise it is the end of the year and people are getting scratchy but that is exactly the kind of thing that makes the public of this country look at this House and ask what we are doing. Let us engage with the issues. 
The Greens look forward to hearing the various views on this bill at the select committee stage. We hope to hear rigorous submissions—particularly from school trustees—so we can get a very clear picture of what this legislation will mean for them in practice and amendments can be made accordingly. The Greens will be supporting this bill at the first reading.